A Churchmouse's Musings

Where did this come from?

2011-05-20T23:03:00.010-05:00

Again, over at Catholic Answers we find the following under the Social Group forum, in the "Let's Empty Purgatory" thread...

"Jesus said if we pray this prayer 1,000 souls from purgatory are released: "Eternal Father, I offer Thee the Most Precious Blood of Thy Divine Son, Jesus, in union with the masses said throughout the world today, for all the souls in Purgatory, for sinners in the universal church, those in my own home and within my family. Amen."

Following this we have Catholics literally typing in this prayer. At this writing, there are 131 pages in this thread with an average of 9 to 10 prayers posted per page. A rough calculation would give us an average of 1,179,000 to 1,310,000 souls already freed through the efforts of these members. And if each of the members posted this prayer, at least, 10 times, they will be putting quite a serious dent on purgatory.

Purgatory aside (anyone who reads this thread KNOWS that purgatory is but a fable to me), can someone kindly point me to where Jesus made this promise? Seems to me that if Jesus did say it and valid support is provided, the purgatory debates are fini. Purgatory does exist!

But He really didn't say it, did He. So why say that He did?

And an oddity from Catholic Answers...

2011-05-20T22:27:00.008-05:00

Perusing through Catholic Answers and I find the following under the "Ask an Apologist" forum...

"My son vomited after Mass this morning. We were on our way to the car when he felt sick and found a patch of grass. Because he was sick in the grass, I didn't dispose of anything, as I couldn't clearly make out any visible remains of the Eucharist. Can you tell me if this was the proper thing to do or should I have done something different?"

The reply given was...

"If there were any clearly visible and recognizable pieces of the Eucharist, and if you had something to use to protect your hands (e.g., a handkerchief or tissue), you would pick up those pieces in the cloth or tissue and take them to a priest or deacon for proper disposal. If not, then simply inform the parish office so it can ask its custodian to pour water over the vomit to dissolve it. Even if the Eucharist had already fully broken down by digestion (in which case the Real Presence no longer remains), the parish likely would want to clean up the lawn anyway."

Personally, I would have looked after the poor kid. Seems the vomit and the lawn got the better end of the deal.

An Oddity from Family Radio

2011-05-19T23:02:00.007-05:00

Those of you who have been keying in on Family Radio may have noticed some irony. One would think that if the Rapture is going to occur on May 21, 2011, and considering that it is "guaranteed" to happen, Family Radio should be in the process of winding down, getting ready to abandon ship. After all, it will all be a pile of rubble at some point before mid-October and, after all, isn't this what their followers are doing. Yet, with less than two days before the judgment, they still ask for monetary support to run Family Radio. Hmmmm..... Something tells me that come May 22, Family Radio and its ministries will slowly become a pile of rubble, when the Campingites come out of their fog and realize that another false prophet just had his way.

Twenty days in...

2011-01-20T20:08:00.005-06:00

It's twenty days into the New Year and I wish all a belated "Happy New Year"! I hope to finish up with the dialogue I'm having with Kumtekmeon soon. I've had a lot on my plate thus far and I can't believe that we are already 20 days into the new year. So far, it has all the earmarks of a fast paced year (or maybe I'm just ultra busy). To be fair to "Kumtekmeon", he did send me quite the voluminous response some time back. I just haven't had the opportunity to respond. Yet, unfortunately for Kumtekmeon, he repeats the same old nonsense about the alleged "gay love story" between David and Jonathan. The argument always amazes me considering it's novelty. Throughout Judeo-Christian history, no one has EVER interpreted David and Jonathan as a homosexual couple, but leave it to liberal theologians and the homosexual agenda to make that attempt. It doesn't surprise me though, considering that nothing is sacred to those who wish to justify sin. Kumtekmeon fairs no better considering he tries to justify it all the same, but is met with futility and nothing more. Well, until I can muster the time to get to that response, I encourage all to read a couple of refutations on this assertion.

J.P. Holding's "Was King David gay?"

Pleaseconvinceme.com's "Were David and Jonathan Homosexual Lovers?"

Fred Baker's "Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?"

Also, there is a very well written article by Reese Currie with a concise refutation of pro-gay arguments. You can find it here: "Pro-Homosexual Arguments Examined."

It's sad to see homosexuals, such as Kumtekmeon, trying so desperately to justify their sin and still remain within the pale of Christianity. It is sadder to see the deception of others who attempt to give "answers" but provide nothing more than revisionism. And, yet, the saddest thing of all is when those who call themselves "Christians" preach a false gospel of false grace, false love, and false acceptance, and yet ignore that repentance and obedience is the evidence of true grace, true love, and true acceptance. Anything else is but pure idolatry. I can only hope that homosexuals, just as all sinners, can look beyond their own desires. Isn't that the carnal man? One who believes that God accepts our sin simply because we desire it. God is unchanging regardless of those who wish to change Him.

Peace,

So, Where's the Evidence?

2010-11-22T17:13:00.008-06:00

It's been awhile since I've posted. To be fair to Kumtekmeon, he responded back in the beginning of October. However, due to some time restraints, I haven't been able to respond until now. Yet, Kumtekmeon continues to confuse me regarding his assertions. He asserts them as fact, but provides nothing to support them. He cites Scripture, rebukingly, as if it applies to our dialogue, but it misses the mark entirely. We continue...

I am certain I responded to the points you stated. My interpretations of key verses are concrete. YOU on the other hand have failed to refute my points. It is ridiculous to argue about early church teachings, because NONE of that represented what Jesus taught.

This is almost laughable. The reader will note three things:

1. He provides no support for the interpretations he claims are “concrete.”
2. Kumtekmeon's “points” are based on silence (i.e. Jesus didn't say anything about it so it must be acceptable).
3. His ignorance towards those who were sanctioned by Christ to teach the gospel (Paul) and those who were taught by these apostles and disciples. To claim that “NONE” represent what Christ taught leaves one wondering “Well, who and what did Christ teach?”

IT'S COMMON SENSE for those who are not in the norm to be treated as outcasts. Women were (and to a degree) still treated as inferior by the church - So what's your point.

This is a false comparison. One can say the same thing about bestiality—that those who desire to have sex with animals are treated as outcasts. And what about incest? Pedophilia? To equate this to the rights of women is fallacious. God evidently made women and ordained that a man and a women can be joined, they have a shared role, but God condemns the act of homosexuality.

Your stance about 'church history ONLY serves to CONFIRM my position, because nothing you have spoken to addresses homosexuality in its general sense.

The issue isn't “homosexuality in the general sense” (whatever that means), but what Scripture teaches about homosexuality and what Christ, who is God and came to earth as a faithful Jew, would have adhered to and had breathed out (as God). The words of the Old and New Testaments are God's words and God's word condemns the sin of homosexuality. Kumtekmeon still hasn't acknowledge this, neither has he responded to this. Furthermore, its sheer verbiage to claim it “CONFIRMS” his position when, once again, he provides no support for his position (whatever that may be).

All you do is to be fixated on anal sex, as if vaginal intercourse is not also seen as sinful.

This is almost laughable as well. My posts are there for all to read and there is no “fixation”, let alone on anal sex. But let's indulge the humor, shall we. Vaginal intercourse, outside the realm of marriage, is sinful (its called fornication and adultery), but within the constructs of marriage it is not sin. Homosexual sex, in whatever form, is always sinful. That is my position, the position of God's word (the Bible), and the position of the historic Christian church. Kumtekmeon continues to make frivolous comparisons and false accusations.

IT IS NOT the sex God raises concerns about, it's the REASON/PURPOSE behind the sexual activity.

Again, where is the support for his assertion? One only has to read passages, such as in Leviticus 18:22, to find that God is very concerned about sexual purity. Context determines the meaning of the passage. The word “toevah” (translated “abomination”) is placed on homosexual sex (v. 22) in the context of adultery (vs. 20), child sacrifice (vs. 21), and bestiality (vs. 23). We can't simply ignore this and claim that the condemnation is based on “REASON/PURPOSE.” It is based on a just and holy God's abhorrence towards sin.

My research has confirmed TRUE the high level of pedophilia practiced by the people of Rome/Athens but it also reveals that whilst it was an acceptable practice for older (MARRIED HETEROSEXUAL) men to take young boys for sex, within that culture, two adult men who are involved sexually would be frowned upon and discriminated. These men were the true homosexuals. However, when the emperor outlawed pederasty, genuine homosexuals suffered the fate, as the Roman Catholic Church wrongly interpreted the bible and this is being played out today.

Kumtekmeon's research is obviously biased and ignores the fact that this wasn't merely a “Roman Catholic Church” thing. The condemnation was clearly there BEFORE there was a “Roman Catholic Church”, a catholic church, or even a church. Furthermore, one wonders why Kumtekmeon can't see that pederasty is an act between two males, regardless of age. To claim that these men were “heterosexual” who desired sex with boys (males) is to ignore that the act is “homosexual.” Note that he stresses “pedophilia” but ignores that the problem was strictly with boys. To put it rightly in perspective, the act was pedophilic, pederastic, and homosexual.

If I were you I would NOT be boasting about church history and what those UNINFORMED clergy wrote in 195 AD etc, because the history of the church holds so many negativities that I DON'T think you wish to be looked at.

Who's boasting??? As a student of church history, I am only pointing out the reality of God's people and the historic orthodox view of homosexuality. Kumtekmeon frivolously uses the word "uninformed", yet, once again, doesn't provide any evidence to corroborate the word. Furthermore, to bring up “negativities” doesn't impede or change the prohibition on homosexual acts. There were many "negative" things throughout the history of the church, yet none having to do with the issue of homosexuality. Why? Because it was ALWAYS understood to be sin based on God's Word. Thus, the prohibitions remained firm and unwavering. However, with Kumtekmeon's, one can almost smell the red herrings approaching.

The Roman Catholic church whose teachings you are holding onto is built on a FALSE foundation. YOU are also out of line.

All one has to do is READ my blog to find out how critical I am of the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, Kumtekmeon continues to ignore that my position isn't based on what a particular church teaches, but on Scripture itself. It just so happens that God's people, the ancient Jews and the early church, understood God's laws and these laws prohibited sin, such as homosexuality. If there is anyone “out of line” it is Kumtekmeon and his ignorance of Scripture.

As Christians, Jesus commanded us to go out into the world and preach ALL WHAT HE had taught us - NOT what Moses said, Not what Paul said, BUT WHAT HE had taught...

Wow!! It is "Kumtekmeon" who is doing the “picking and choosing” of what he claims Christ taught. Evidently, he assumes that Moses and Paul DIDN'T teach what Christ taught. In other words, the words of Scripture isn't what “Christ taught.” So where do we go to find out what “Christ taught”??? To Kumtekmeon??? Obviously not. He separates “what Christ taught” from the very men that God ordained to teach “what Christ taught.” Amazing!

...yet you have failed to follow Jesus commands and instead following after man's, but as Isaiah 5:14 says, ''Hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.'' Jesus said on the day of judgement many will say, Lord, I have healed the sick, cast out demons and have done many wonderful things in your name, YET Jesus reply is DEPART from me, I know you not!

This is simply “verse-slinging”, tossing Scripture around for impact rather than substance. I can toss the same Scripture at Kumtekmeon for the very same reasons and it merits nothing. What does count is interpreting Scripture within its context. Therein is where the true impact lies. What I find ironic is that he cites the prophet Isaiah. There's a contradiction here considering that, according to Kumtekmeon, we are to listen to what Christ taught and not Moses or Paul. So, is this to say that We can listen to Isaiah as well as to Christ? Do we need any more evidence of "pick and choose" theology on the part of Kumtekmeon. And, as a further testament of this irony, he cites Matthew 7:22-23 out of context. Who are those known of Christ? They are those who follow His word and, of course, His Word is none other then what you find in Scripture (including the laws against the sin of homosexuality).

So many of you boasting about your 'righteousness' need to think again. So far, from my observation, gay affirming churches are more focused on Jesus teachings than the traditional church. Think on that.

Once again we find rhetoric. I mean, who's boasting? I'm a saved sinner. My righteousness is like filthy rags to a holy God. I have absolutely NOTHING to boast about except for the mercies of God via the pure and holy sacrifice of Christ. I would imagine that the only reason Kumtekmeon believes "gay affirming" churches are more focused on His teaching is because they are “gay affirming.” It stands to reason that a church should be “Christ affirming.” Unfortunately for Kumtekmeon, to be Christ affirming would entail that one be “Scripture affirming” which leads right back to the prohibition on homosexuality. After all, Scripture is what Christ appealed to when refuting the Pharisees. Furthermore, Christ is the “Word of God made flesh” (John 1), the embodiment and the fulfillment of God's law. Once again, unfortunately for Kumtekmeon, the Word of God prohibits homosexuality, such as in Leviticus 18:22-23; 20:13; Romans 1:21-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9 and the implications within Genesis 19; Judges 19; Ezekiel 16:49-50; and Jude 1:7. To be Christ-affirming would mean that one affirms those whom Christ chose to teach (such as Paul) as well as the teaching itself (such as those which condemn the sin of homosexuality). You simply can't get around it.

My aim at no time is to convince you, because gays DO NOT need approval from 'the Church' to live their lives because we as individuals are the church and NO ONE holds a patent on God.

Kumtekmeon's defiance of the church, of which Jesus himself ordained as the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), is here for all to see. Considering that Kumtekmeon wants to delineate between Christ's actual “words” and those of men like Paul and Moses, he doesn't seem to have read this verse...

“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 18:15-19)

Clearly, the church has authority and, just as clearly, it is Christ who says so. His assertion that “individuals” are the church is misguided, as this verse attests. Collectively, we are the church and the church has authority over those who claim to be believers.

Jesus tells me in John 15 that the world loves its own, and hate those who belong to Him. So far it is gays and those who support gays are hated by the world/Church.

Once again, Kumtekmeon is guilty of verse-slinging. I can make a stronger argument that the world hates evangelical Christians, because it is they who uphold God's teachings (Scripture) rather than gays or gay supporters. One only has to look at liberal politics to see anti-Evangelical sentiments at work. Besides, Kumtekmeon's logic is faulty here. He seems to imply that if the world hates you than you must belong to Christ. Hate is not a common factor in the context of belonging to Christ. Rather, it is exclusive to those who preach Christ. Even his exegesis of John 15, to no one's surprise, is faulty. If you love Christ you keep His “commandments” (plural) just as He upheld the Father's “commandments” (plural). This is the thrust of the passage (vs.15). Hate is NOT the evidence that you abide with Christ.

But I am not surprised because Jesus said in ch16 that they will put us out of the church, and today if a pastor speaks in favor of homosexuals he or she is expelled from the church, so all these things must happen.

Once again, Kumtekmeon is guilty of eisegesis.(reading his position into the text rather than allowing the text to speak for itself). In John 16, Jesus is speaking to his Jewish followers. The word is “synagogue” and not “church.” Furthermore, the passage has nothing to do with homosexuals but, rather, those who follow Christ. Kumtekmeon makes it seem as if it is gays and gay supporters that will be put out of the church, but fails to see that one can be rightly put out of the church. If an individual is unrepentant and continues in his sin, he must be put out of the church. Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 come to mind in support of this. Being expelled from the church is due to sin and not persecution as Kumtekmeon seems to imply.

Therefore, YOU may continue your HATE CAMPAIGN against gays, and those who support gays, BUT God has got our backs and no matter the torture, we shall overcome.

This is nothing but rhetoric. It is the “if you don't agree with me, you hate me” appeal-to-pity argument that many, not just homosexual advocates, use to gather sympathy for their cause. Sorry, but disagreement does not constitute hate. God has got “the backs” of those who obey Him and not those who attempt to re-create Him to their own liking.

Do you think all those suicides will go in vain? Do you think those who are burned alive, forced to live on the streets, mocked and jeered, scorned and fired from their jobs etc etc...will go in VAIN? God is a just God who is a friend to the helpless. So you may continue with your hate, I will follow Jesus' command and LOVE!

One can only look to those who loved Christ and were burned alive, dismembered, speared, tortured, disemboweled, sawed in half, crucified, beaten, etc. etc, etc. for the sake of the gospel. To see the inanity of the statement above. Kumtekmeon's “martyrs” pale in comparison and only serves to show what sin does—it brings consequences. As for the suicides, and I assume he is implying the recent suicides of gay teens who were bullied, to the Christian, this is unacceptable. No one, let alone a teen, should be bullied. As sad as this may be, what makes it all sadder is that teen suicide has been a problem in this country and many, not only gays, have been bullied to the point of suicide. The injustice of all this is that teen bullying and suicide has pretty much been obscure until the recent gay teen suicides. Although no one advocates suicide for any reason, it is a sign of the times that the gay issue would bring the subject of teen suicide into view and THAT is the real shame. So, although I mourn with anyone who's lost a love one, gay or otherwise, due to bullying, it isn't just a “gay” thing. Compassion is a Jesus thing and one the Christian strives to follow. To make it a “gay” issue and circumvent the reality of teen suicide as a whole, is ignorance at it's best, regardless of the verbal facade of “LOVE” and obedience. I remain firm, SCRIPTURE and Scripture alone is where we find God's voice, His commandments, and the unwavering anchor of His love towards His children. Yet, Kumtekmeon continues to re-create Scripture, implying that God's servants, such as Moses and Paul, aren't the conduits of God's revelation to man. He re-creates God into what he feels God should be and this is nature of idolatry.

Another lesson in futility

2010-10-05T18:56:00.007-05:00

Kumtekmeon continues to misunderstand the nature of Scripture, especially in light of the nature of Christ. He seems to be a "red letter" reader, thinking that Christ's words are only those stated in the red letters of a standard Bible, those uttered during His earthly ministry. What he obviously misunderstands is that the entirety of Scripture IS Christ's words, but isn't that the way it goes when attempting to justify sin? I don't mean to sound mean but it is what it is.

Kumtekmeon's words are in brown, mine's in black...

When making a case against a group of people, it would do good to speak SPECIFICALLY to that group of people. Confusing homosexuality with pederasty only goes to show how BIAS and DECEPTIVE you are.

Wrong. Pederasty is still homosexual sex even if it is with boys. Remember, the issue is homosexual sex and not a man with homosexual feelings or tendencies. It is the acting on these feelings or tendencies, whether in thought or in deed, that Secondly, not every citation in the video was “specifically” about pederasty. Pederasty just happened to be the coveted form of homosexual sex at the time. By the way, the only bias and deception being presented is your comments, considering you’re not thinking this through.

Pederasty is what is considered pedophilia today.

Wrong again. Pederasty was “specifically” sex with boys. Pedophilia is sex wth children, both girls and boys.

Where is the evidence to show that homosexuals go about abusing children.

What is the sexual orientation of a man who has sex with boys? It isn’t “straight” I assure you. You do know how to google, don’t you.

You need to be enlighten to the reality that homosexuals ARE NOT only adults. So far we have 5 gay suicides in 3 weeks and they were all youth, NOT adults.

So what is the relevance?

So where is the link?

What “link” is it that you want?

Speaking to sexual immorality in the church and practices of anal sex among males, AND to sexual acts to that of lesbians ARE NOTHING NEW! Paul in Romans 1 pointed to these, BUT in order to support your homophobic agenda, have deliberately changed the context.

Why is it that when someone sees what is evident in Scripture and points it out, they automatically become “homophobes.” I believe the word is used frivolously and to vilify those who see it as sin. I’m no more a “homophobe” than you are. As to your statement regarding Paul, well, that’s odd? On the one hand you admit that Paul speaks of these, but on the other you say that the context has been "deliberately changed." How? I would dare you to consult any of the ancient church fathers who commented on Romans 1. Did they change the context? Rather, it is the gay interpretation that is novel and attempts to "change the context" to solace their lifestyle. Yet, historically, the ancient Jews and Christians understood Scripture to condemn the homosexual act as sin.

Citing men of old, even those who were apostles to John etc proves NOTHING!

LOL! It only proves that this is the way these passages were ALWAYS understood. It only proves that gay theology is nothing more than twisting Scripture. It is a hostile witness against those who claim that Scripture doesn't condemn the homosexual act.

Isn't it a fact that the books of the prophets were known to the Pharisees, YET they failed to recognize Jesus?

The story of the Pharisees is a story of rebellion. They were witnesses of Christ’s ministry, including His miracles, but were revealed to be hypocrites by Jesus. Because they rebelled doesn’t contrast with what the Scriptures state so clearly regarding homosexuality. Even the Pharisees would have agreed with the condemnation in Leviticus 18:22 as, of course, a condemnation of homosexuality. Their “misrecognition” has nothing to do with homosexuality, but with their rebellion. In the same way, those who attempt to use Scripture to validate what Scripture condemns are just as rebellious.

Isn't it a fact that the same bible we have today was had in Pre and Post Slavery time, YET blacks were not fully accepted into the church. Men are prone to mistranslate AND misrepresent the word of God.

That is a fallacious argument. Men using or misusing the Bible has no bearing on the truth that is WITHIN Scripture. Sure, the Bible can be used to validate a host of errors, but proper exegesis of Scripture leads away from the error.

So tell me what Jesus said and not what man said.

SCRIPTURE, the entirety of the word of God, IS WHAT JESUS SAID! I believe I corrected you on this before. Men wrote it as they were moved by God. The word is “theopneustos” which means God literally “breathed” it out as the prophets and disciples wrote His words. It came from the very mouth of God. Have you even read 2 Timothy 3:16? Do you believe that Jesus is God? I assume you do considering your question differentiates between Jesus and “man.” So, if Jesus is God, why is it that you do not recognize ALL of Scripture as being what Jesus "said"?

Isn't it funny how you can neither quote Jesus NOR any of His disciples to support your homophobic agenda!

Rather, it is funnier that you don’t seem to recognize that Scripture IS Jesus talking. ALL of Scripture are the words of Christ. Even the words of Leviticus and Romans. It’s ALL Christ! Have you even read John 1, where it speaks of Christ? It states that “in the beginning was the Word” and that the Word “was with God” and that the Word “was God.” Well, this “Word” became “flesh” and dwelt amongst us. It’s odd that you want specific words from Christ as evidence when the ENTIRE Bible is Christ’s specific words. You see, your argument isn’t with me, but with Christ! You just can’t seem to understand it because it goes against your position.

By the way, once again, there is no "homophobic agenda." You simply toss those words to attack the man and not the argument. You think that vilifying me lessens the impact of Scripture. It doesn't.

It is people like you why hatred and division remains.

There you go again equating disagreement to “hatred and division.” If one holds the conviction that homosexuality is condemned by God via Scripture and that it is rightly sin, he therefore becomes a hater and a divider according to your logic. You seem content in poisoning the well, but a sensible person would understand religious conviction enough to know that there is no wrong intent.

Jesus said ''Come unto me, ALL [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'' MAN cares about sexuality NOT God.

Jesus also inspired the words of Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 and sexuality remains an issue with God. The fact is that all SIN remains an issue with God, irregardless of your Scripture-tossing. Scripture-tossing, as you do here, doesn’t validate right belief and the verse you cite has nothing to do with sexuality and God.

Come on baby! Let's do the Twist...

2010-09-08T13:40:00.010-05:00

Kumtekmeon responded to my blog post via a YouTube personal message. It seems that the combox doesn't allow for large responses. This is probably preferable. Comboxes are very limited and not format-friendly.

Most of Kumtekmeon's responses is second-handed considering he sent me a previously written response to an unknown person. Yet, considering the nature of the argumentation, I will have to treat it as if he's asserting that I'm arguing the same way. Why else would he send it to me? The reader will note that his argumentation is not new, but can be found on websites such as the Gay Christian Network or the Metropolitan Community Churches. Please pay close attention to the way Kumtekmeon interprets Scripture. Is it valid? Let the reader decide.

Kumtekmeon's words are in blue, mine's are in black. We begin...

Churchmouse, if my position on homosexuality and the bible was unmoving, you wouldn't have seen the need to address my points in detail. So please desist from undermining my position.

If you read through my blog you will see that I’m details-oriented to begin with, regardless of how strong or weak the counter-argument is. The truth is that I don’t see your argument as valid, especially when the weight of Scriptural exegesis and church history is firmly behind me. Your arguments are not new to me. They are novel, recent, and have been proven to lack exegetically. So, if it seems I’m “undermining”, its not intentional, it’s only because the facts of Scripture are contra your position.

Now (as expected) your FIRST point of reference points to Sodom, a city that was destroyed by God for a multitude of sins, AND NOT for the inhabitant of a few homosexuals who might've been living there at the time. However, you have chosen to follow in the LIE of man that Sodom was destroyed due to homosexuality. How ignorant can you be?

Whoa! You’re building a straw man. Would you care to show me WHERE I made the argument that Sodom was specifically destroyed for its homosexuality? It’s quite the contrary. Sodom was destroyed for its wickedness. The homosexual act these men attempted to perform was but one of the evils for which it was destroyed. For all we know, the men who attempted the rape might NOT have been homosexual, but the act of homosexuality itself was evidently abominable. Again, I’ll repeat this so you don’t get confused: Sodom was destroyed specifically for its wickedness. The Sodomites were not necessarily homosexual, but attempted to commit a homosexual act. It was the act itself that was abominable. Practicing homosexuals fair no better considering this act is a part of their lifestyle. The story of Sodom accentuates the “male on male” prohibition that was later defined in Leviticus 18:22. Still, God had already planned to destroy these cities BEFORE the men surrounded Lot’s home.

In addition Jesus' response to a specific question regarding marriage in a traditional setting in the [then] Jewish culture, IN NO WAY supports your twisted view on homosexuality. Let me hasten to remind you that Jesus pointed to what Adam said, 'A man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife.' BUT Jesus THEN spoke profoundly and universally by DECLARING that 'who God put together, let no man put asunder'. This is a GENERAL statement…

The only thing “twisted” is what you are doing to divine Scripture. You are clearly taking the Scriptures OUT of their context. Contextually, Matthew states…

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them MALE and FEMALE, And said, For this cause shall a MAN leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his WIFE: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6)

What is it that God “joined together”? He joined a man (male) and his wife (female) to be “one flesh” and no man can take them apart. That is the context of the passage and not a “GENERAL statement.” You ignored the CONTEXT of the passage (marriage, divorce, and the created order in Genesis) and then isolated one word to make an argument that is foreign to the context. Doesn’t that tell you something about yourself?

…therefore Who are you to say Mary and Sarah were not joined together by God, especially now when they are celebrating their 50th anniversary of being together?

That’s pragmatism! Just because something “worked” doesn’t mean it is God ordained. If “Mary and Sarah” died in complete faithfulness to one another it doesn’t therefore follow that it was a God-ordained union. It only means that THEY were completely faithful to one another, yet were living in sin because God ordained it as sin.

What then is your measurement to determine the term 'joined together'?

Proper Biblical hermeneutics! Again, you read the CONTEXT of the passage and go from there. God doesn’t join what he doesn’t approve, namely homosexual marriage, due to the prohibitions He gives in His Word.

Churchmouse, I am here to point you to the truth, because for far too long you have been living a lie!

Beating your chest as if you had some form of forsaken “truth” isn’t doing you any favors. Again, one only has to read the Bible without inflicting their own biases to find that your interpretation really doesn’t hold any water. My guess is that you’ve been reading some gay theological material, maybe from some website. Yet, as I’ve said, these arguments are started with the intent of making Scripture fit the gay lifestyle rather than submit the gay lifestyle to Scripture.

Since Sodom is your primary base, let us examine it> (The below points were taken from a response I sent to another sometime ago).Let us examine Sodom. This was an ancient city or a place where people lived. Sodom was one of five cities which included Gomorrah, but these two are famous because of their destruction. Now tell me, HOW do you know someone is from NYC or say Nashville? By their inward and external characteristics.

If you are addressing these points to me (as you said, this response was to someone else), I would have to treat it as if it were to me. That said, I have no idea what it is that you are saying here. Not everyone from “NYC” or “Nashville” share the same “inward and external characteristics.” If you meant that folks in a given city share some sub cultural tendencies, such as accents and lifestyles, that might be true for a large portion, but it’s not the norm for all. For example, if a man from Dallas speaks with a thick Texas drawl and wears a cowboy hat, that might determine that he is from the South, but it’s fallacious to say that all men from Dallas speak with a drawl and wear cowboy garb.

Therefore, when one refers to someone as a Sodomite that person should be exerting characteristics of behavioral patterns existed or common to Sodom.

Well, there is only one commonality that the Bible gives us for Sodom, that being that ALL were wicked and that not even one righteous man could be found. Again, I have no idea what this has to do with our dialogue or how it factors in.

Now homosexual men are WRONGLY referred to as Sodomites in a negative manner (stemming from God's destruction). I specifically used the word wrongly, because the evidence regarding the character of a typical Sodomite DOES NOT lend itself to homosexuality. The story in Genesis did not tell us much about the people of Sodom OTHER than what took place at Lot's house.

Homosexual men are referred to as Sodomites??? In whose world? The word “sodomy”, which finds its roots in the actions of the Sodomites (the citizens of Sodom) means (according to the Merriam Webster dictionary)…

“anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal”

Note that it doesn’t say “a homosexual.” It’s only the act that is relegated to the word. Now, homosexuals engage in sodomy, but it isn’t unique to them. The same can happen between a man and a woman but that doesn't make them homosexual. And what about prisons? Men may rape one another, yet it doesn't mean that they are homosexuals. They are guilty of sodomy, but they surely aren't homosexual. Yet, this remains the stigma of Sodom that a word was formed with their actions (anal sex) in mind. This is also the stigma of homosexuals considering that sodomy is a large practice amongst them, but it in no wise means that the word “Sodomites” strictly pertains to homosexuals. Again, you are beating a dead horse because no one is making an argument for Sodom being a city of homosexuals. I don’t even know why you even brought this argument up.

We have been told from childhood, be it directly OR indirectly, that a group of GAY MEN went to Lot's house wanting to have sex with the 2 male strangers who were staying there, and we have grown to accept this account as true. HOWEVER, if we actually read the bible AND apply basic comprehension, we will see that we have been MISLED.

If one reads the Bible and applies basic comprehension than the account of Sodom stigmatizes the homosexual act, verses such as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemn homosexuality, Romans 1 condemns it as well, and 1 Corinthians 6:9 becomes blatant. If one gets technical and applies the principles of basic hermeneutics the argument becomes stronger against homosexuality.

No, once again, you are building a straw man. I don’t know what “childhood” has to do with this, but I assure you that no one tucked me into bed and read me the story of “The Evil Gay Men from Sodom.” Again, it is the homosexual act that is prominent in the story and many homosexuals are only guilty in that they practice the sexual actions of the Sodomites. Yet, to correct another misconception of yours, it isn’t the account of Sodom and Gomorrah that is our “ace in the hole” regarding homosexuality, but what Scripture states as a whole. There are passages within Scripture that are more direct in their condemnation of homosexuality than merely focusing on Genesis 19.

God had sent those 2 angels in the form of man to DESTROY Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness. In Genesis, the act of wickedness was not specified, and the story went on to climax at Lot's door. NOW, we've always been given the imagery of an all male gay mob at Lot's door, BUT that's a lie, because Genesis 19:4 reads: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, ALL THE PEOPLE from every quarter.This clearly tells us that it was not only men at Lot's door WOMEN AND CHILDREN were also there. Why? Because what was taking place was a cultural practice of dealing with strangers; The people of Sodom did not take kindly to strangers coming into their city. Lot lived on the outskirt of Sodom and apparently someone saw the men entering Lot's home and informed the 'officials' who rallied and led the entire town to Lot's door in order to carry out their unkind tradition.

Still, I must point out that your words here are stated with a claim I never made. I never asserted that the Sodomites were all gay men. That is a straw man that you continue to beat. Let’s get some clarity on this: I only pointed out that the actions of the men from Sodom constitute the homosexual act. It is the homosexual act that is abominable to God.

Now we've been told the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the strangers, I have NO OBJECTION, except for the kind of sex intended. If a man rapes a woman, it is still SEX he had with her. This is exactly what the men of Sodom intended to do to the strangers: they wanted to rape them. How do I know this? Genesis 19:9 reads: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now WILL WE DEAL WORSE WITH THEE, THAN WITH THEM. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near TO BREAK the door.

Actually, what you cite here DOESN’T relay what they planned to do to the men. The intent of homosexual rape is found in verse 5, where the men wanted to “know” them. Now, if you attempt to make a case that “know” doesn’t necessarily mean “to have sex with”, walk very carefully because I can prove very conclusively that “know” is a sexual term within this context.

The use of the word worse TELLS that the men of Sodom planned to be abusive to the strangers. From this account can you SERIOUSLY show me how this action relates to the characteristics of Homosexuals. Do gays go about beating down doors demanding strange men be brought out so that they rape them? NO! In fact the mere thought of Lot suggesting his virgin daughters to calm the mob CONFIRMS that those men were not homosexuals, because homosexuals ARE NOT attracted to women, so Lot's (on knowing the 'nature' of the PEOPLE) suggestion CONTRADICTS any idea of the men being gay.

You continue to argue as if I asserted that these were gay men. Please point me to where I made the assertion. The proper exegesis of Scripture proves that the homosexual act is the “worse” part of the story. “Rape” isn’t the key point because Lot offers his daughters to be raped. It is the sex between men that really stands out. How do we know this? Because Lot calls this an “evil deed” and attempts to counteract it by offering his daughters (females) in their stead. So, within that context, rape isn’t the “evil deed” within the passage. Some have attempted to argue that the “evil deed” is the rape of angels, but that can’t be because none were aware that these were angels, even Lot (see verse 5 where the angels were clearly called “men”). Evidently, the “evil deed” is the homosexual act—men having sex with men. Regardless of their sexual orientation, the act is prominent in the passages. Again, context is the key to properly understanding the account.

Furthermore, Judges 19 TELLS a similar story of men from a certain city wanting to rape a strange man, luckily for him they agreed to take his concubine instead and they raped and abused her to her death!

You are only making my case for me. Yes, the same incident happens in Judges 19, but here lies the difference—the homosexual act was NOT carried out. But it wasn’t without consequence because it resulted in a war with the Benjaminites. See the difference? In Genesis 19 the men of Sodom intended to perform the act and were destroyed, but the men in Judges 19 didn’t follow through. Humiliation couldn’t have been the driving force considering that sexual copulation remains the intent of the act or else why would the “certain sons of Belial” settle for the woman. Evidently, sex appeased the men. There are clear differences between the two accounts and the homosexual act remains prominent as the “evil deed” in BOTH accounts.

This is an example of what might've happened to the strangers IF the people of Sodom had their way. Such behavior in no way reflects that of homosexuals. YES there are gay men who have committed rape, LIKEWISE straight men have committed rape. BUT the hypocrisy is that when a man rapes a woman he is a rapist, but when a man rapes a man he is a homosexual?

To the contrary, it is the homosexual act that is prominent in BOTH stories, but is not carried through in the latter, regardless of whether it is forced upon (such as rape) or not. The parallels you make sidestep the real issue. Even the parallels are not properly constructed. For instance, if a man forces himself sexually on a woman, of course! He is a rapist. If a man forces himself sexually on another man, of course! He is still considered a rapist. Yet, I have never heard anyone in any court of law state that the man is guilty of “homosexuality” if the rape of another man occurred. Sodomy, yes, guilty of homosexuality, no. You are way over the top on this one.

So far I have shown you that a Sodomite IS NOT a homosexual, because the character expressed from the people of Sodom does not match that of typical homosexuals.

No one is arguing that a Sodomite is a homosexual, so you really haven’t shown me anything. You really need to pay attention to what I have asserted and stop making up an argument I never made.

So who are Sodomites? Well according to GOD in Ezekiel 16, He identified Sodomites by their sins, as their sinful nature characterizes the people in general, unlike today where you find a mixture of righteous and unrighteous existing 'together' in one city. All the people of Sodom except for Lot and his household indulged in sin which became their character. Thus, God said in Ezekiel 16:49 - BEHOLD, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

The Sodomites were the people of Sodom, plain and simply. God points them out for their wickedness, but he also delineates that they committed an “abomination” (singular). This abomination is alluded in Ezekiel 16:50 and in Jude 1:7. Hmmm…yet, you cite Ezekiel 16, focused on the inhospitable treatment of others, but danced around the “abomination” aspect of it. No one denies that hospitality was an issue, but did you notice verse 50 which reads “…and committed abomination before me.” It isn’t all about “inhospitality” but the conjunction “and” makes a distinction between the other sins and the abomination. There is only one other thing that is clearly abominable in Scripture and we both know what that is.

Here you have it, ACCORDING to God Himself, a Sodomite is someone who is well off , yet unkind, selfish, idle. Is it fair to say such traits are ONLY exhibit by Gays OR isn't it a FACT that Heterosexuals are also guilty of such traits? Bear in mind that Jesus made reference to Sodom on two occasions and AT NO TIME He accused homosexuals of Sodom's destruction. So my question is, Whose report are you following? Certainly, NOT God's!

Once again, this is just bad argumentation. Jesus didn’t make references to many things and the Bible isn't exhaustive. Are we to assume that when Jesus doesn't mention something than it’s not sinful? Just because Jesus didn’t delineate the homosexual aspect of Sodom doesn’t mean that it wasn’t abominable in God’s eyes. And you still seem to ignore that apart from being "unkind, selfish, idle" the Sodomites were guilty of an abomination. Keep that in mind because you are trying to argue from silence.

Churchmouse, you went on to speak foolishly about Leviticus 18:22 referring also to homosexuals. READ THE BIBLE for once in your life! Where is the evidence that being gay is a learnt behavior?

It refers to men having sex with other men. Homosexuals fall in by default. Once again, you are beating a straw man because I never said it was “learnt behavior.” If you cannot see what is so plainly in Leviticus 18:22 then the foolishness falls with you. As for reading the Bible, I would venture to say that our dialogue is public record by virtue of this blog. The reader can determine for himself if my Bible knowledge lacks or if it is spot on. Furthermore, they can determine for themselves if your verbosity (calling me foolish, “blinded your mind”, your condescension, etc.) is warranted. In other words, they can read our dialogue and determine what is being said, bypassing all the verbosity. I’m okay with that.

Who is training boys and girls in the most homophobic countries, BEFORE the advent of Television and internet and other forms of media on how to be gay? RIDICULOUS!

I have never asserted that the media is training our children to be gay. Are you asserting that they are? What is truly “RIDICULOUS” is how you continue on with an argument I never made. Once again, I dare you to show me where I claimed such a thing.

I asked such questions because if you had read the passage you would've seen that the laws God gave in that passage were DIRECT reactions to customs/practices the Jews picked up from the Egyptians and Canaanites, so you need to show me that being gays is learnt in order to render that Leviticus verse valid! In addition the structure of the law itself raises contradictions BUT your desperation to accurse gays have blinded your mind.

LOL!! Once again you show your naïveté regarding Scripture and human nature. God wanted His people to be separate from the practices of the heathen, but still persisted due to their own sinful natures. This included homosexuality. It doesn’t have to be “learnt behavior” but rather succumbing to their sinful natures. I would like to see what you mean by the Law “raising contradictions” because it sounds like you would resort to an “out” if need be. In other words, even if Leviticus does condemn the act (which it does) you will attempt to find a way around it. That won’t happen.

I will continue on your follies tomorrow (hopefully).

It will be just another opportunity to address the issue and show how Christianity and homosexuality are not compatible.

Excuses, excuses....

2010-08-23T12:50:00.006-05:00

Over at youtube, a poster by the name of "Kumtekmeon" replied on the issue of homosexuality and the Bible. This was after I responded to "dreamequality", a gay man who deleted his first channel only to resurrect it with, yet, another one. "dreamequality" persists in his twisting of Scripture and in his attempts to legitimize homosexuality via the Bible. Considering that Scripture IS VERY clear in its condemnation of homosexuality, I responded. Yet, Kumtekmeon reiterates the very same novel arguments, by which it seems he is only trying to convince himself.

Kumtekmeon's words in blue, mine's in black...

You saying that the law against homosexuality (which NEVER existed) still reamins in the NT yet you cannot show me where Jesus at anytime uphold such a law! Saying something DOES NOT make it true WITHOUT FACTS! As said before the bible does not condemn homosexuality..

Never existed??? From the sin of Sodom (Genesis 19) all the way to Christ’s reiteration of who marries under the creation order (Matthew 19:4-6), you have nothing but a condemnation of homosexual perversion. Furthermore, regardless of how evil men attempt to twist them, the Scriptures are clear in that men are not to lay with men as they do with women (Lev.18:22, 20:13). Now, I have heard many homosexuals attempt to bypass what Scripture clearly states by claiming that Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. In other words if Christ didn’t “verbally” state it in the New Testament then there's nothing wrong with it. That’s fallacious at best. Christ wasn’t exhaustive during His earthly ministry. He didn’t say something about everything. Yet, we do know that He always appealed to the Old Testament Scriptures as the Law of God. Furthermore, we also know from 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL Scripture is God-breathed (the Greek word is “theopneustos”, meaning that it finds its origin directly from the mouth of God), thus ALL Scripture (Old and New Testament) is spoken by God. God spoke through men, they being the vessels used to convey what what He breathed out (2 Peter 1:20). The prophets didn’t write what they “interpreted” from God, but were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what God had said. Now, take this to its conclusion:

1. Jesus is God
2. God spoke through men who, in turn, wrote what God spoke (Scriptures)
3. God condemned homosexuality in various verses (transitioning from the Old Testament—Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22, 20:13—over to the New Testament—Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9).
4. Thus, Jesus, who is God, condemns homosexuality.

Of course, this is built on the premise that Jesus is God. If you don’t believe He is than I guess I really can’t help you. Yet, you appealed to Christ as the authority. Which is it?

What you've been taught to be homosexuality IS NOT dealing with homosexuality

Rather, what YOU’VE been taught (by those who which to legitimize this perversion) is not true. Historically, God’s people (the Jews and the early church) understood that it was homosexuality that God speaks of within the Scriptures. The interpretations you’ve accepted are novel at best, attempted by men who seek to justify their sin.

I hope you know that by accepting Leviticus 18 to be speaking to homosexuality, that you are in turn labeling God BIASED and CONTRARY! This is so because what reason is given as to why God then DID NOT condemn lesbianism. I know you love to point to Romans 1, BUT that's centuries after.

Again, ALL Scripture (Old and New Testament) is inspired by God. Whether it is Leviticus or Romans, it ALL comes from God. To claim that it is men that Leviticus speaks of (at the exclusion of women) is arguing semantics. Again, the Jews always understood this to be perversion and against God’s law. This finds its logical conclusion in Romans 1, where it points out what the Jews (and now the Gentiles) have always understood— that regardless of homosexuality or lesbianism—it remains WRONG.

Also You are saying God did not care about homosexuality among the other nations except the Jews.

What I said that God’s laws were meant to keep a people (Israel) separate from the rest of the world and consecrated unto Him. Salvation belonged to the Jews and they were to be a light to the world. Homosexuality?? Eveyone else was a pagan and these perversions were rampant. Of course, some of these laws have changed in this age of grace, but the condemnation against homosexuality remains.

You have got yourself in a pickle as in Acts Peter declared NOT to put the YOKE around the gentiles neck!

LOL! Where did Peter say that and what has this to do within the context of homosexuality? Are you saying that sin cannot be clarified for fear that it would become a “yoke”??? Are you serious?

In relation to the By-Laws in Leviticus 18, IF you read the entire passage you will see that those laws came about as a DIRECT result of customs and practices the Israelites picked up in Egypt and Canaan, which includes, men sleeping with men AS WITH women.

Firstly, these weren’t “by-laws” but LAWS. Secondly, whether it was a result of “customs and practices” or not, is pointless, considering that it remains a detestable act to God. That’s the point and, to your behest, you are making it for me. Lastly, I sense that you are attempting to draw a parallel between a man who lies with a man versus a man who lies with men and women. Are you saying that bisexuals are what God speaks of here and not pure homosexuals? What is the “abomination” being spoken of here? I think that a cursory reading of the verses shows that homosexuality, in any form, is what is being spoken of here. Why? Because of God’s created order—men and women—and His intent for us (Genesis 2:24-25, which again is reiterated BY CHRIST in Matthew 19:4-6). This is why homosexuality is an abomination to Him and a perversion of His divine order.

Am I to believe homosexuality is a learnt behavior? Are you saying that religious boy back in 1919 in Virginia was trained by his Baptist parents on how to be gay?

Not at all! Is adultery “learnt behavior”? Is stealing “learnt behavior”? It all boils down to the depraved nature of man. Apart from God we are ALL condemned because of sin. We all struggle with sin, some our entire lives, but we consecrate our lives to Him and allow Him to work within us, shunning sin at all cost. Our wills bound by His grace. It all goes to what Paul stated concerning the Potter (God) and the clay pots (men). Are we going to ask God why He made us the way we are? Do we have the right? Have you read Romans 9? God does as He wills and for His purpose. We are at His mercy.

It is not a crime to apply common sense to your logics.

Who said it is my “logics” [sic]? I simply read Scripture and deduce that man is sinful and capable of anything. What makes it worse is when men take God’s Holy Word and attempt to justify their sinful nature. Woe to those who do so. Just as you said, it isn't a crime to apply common Scriptural sense to your logic.

Let me show you that I DO understand scriptures. At NO TIME God condoned sex with animals, this is so because animals are of a DIFFERENT FLESH!

I have no idea what it is that you are trying to say here or how you deduce that “different flesh” is what God means by all this. If I use your line of logic, I can easily say that God doesn’t condone “male on male” sex because they are of the SAME GENDER. I contend that you really don’t know Scripture and are interpreting it at a whim, as you clearly show with the statement above. Again, the prohibitions found in the verses are homosexuality, incest, and bestiality. You would decry incest and bestiality even today, why not homosexuality? Selectivity doesn’t trump truth.

God did not show any objection to Abraham marrying his half sister Sarah, it was in Moses time such a law came into being.

As you stated, this was BEFORE the law and is clearly delineated in Scripture. After all, where did the wives of Adam and Eve’s sons come from? God’s purpose allowed for this at one time, but changed afterward. However, looking at the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God clearly detested this sin even BEFORE the Law came into place.

As you so rightly said in OT God separated Israel from the gentiles BUT this was a failure which is why Jesus had was to come with a new covenant.

BUT Christ reiterates God’s order (again Matthew 19:4-6) and the New Testament (again, which comes from the mouth of God) condemns homosexuality. Thus, the new covenant doesn’t legitimize the homosexual act but condemns it. You are without an excuse, even in the new covenant.

Homosexuality WAS NEVER addressed in the OT you need to prove that!

I don’t know how clear it has to be for you. The verses that I have cited (add 1 Timothy 1:8-10 into the mix as well) are a condemnation of homosexuality. No amount of eisegesis is going to change this sin into an acceptable practice. Furthermore, careful exegesis of Scripture, such as when employing Jude 1:7 and Ezekiel 16:49-50 (not merely vs. 49 as many gay-advocates love to quote) add to a serious condemnation of homosexuality. Furthermore, the historical understanding of these verses (the early Jews and the early church) goes against you as well. If you cannot see it, that’s not my problem, but my guess is that you know exactly what I’m talking about. You may not like it, but you know it and, therefore, you're left without an excuse.

Brother Moishe has left the building....

2010-05-24T20:33:00.009-05:00

A couple of days ago, May 19th to be exact, a wonderful brother in Christ, Moishe Rosen, the founder of Jews for Jesus, entered glory. Moishe left a letter of encouragement and hope that is currently posted on the website. We all praise the Lord God Almighty for the ministry He placed in the hands of His faithful servant. He will be missed by those of us who dwell on earth, but take heart all you saints, he ran the race and has received his reward. Can you imagine the overwhelming joy Brother Moishe felt when he beheld the face of Christ for the first time? O, blessed be the Lord!!

Banned from Catholic Answers: Happy to have a Blog

2010-02-15T17:43:00.027-06:00

So, yesterday, I get this message from the Catholic Answers Forum moderator warning me about an infraction I committed. The message stated…

He is referring to a response I made to one of their members. Let me give you a little background, the thread was about the Staples vs. White debate on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. If anyone is familiar with the Catholic Answers Forum, it is most difficult to keep folks on track and goes astray very easily. Usually, everything from the Trinity to the canon to the ol' "number of Protestant denominations" red herrings are tossed into the mix. Every now and then, someone will hop on the thread with something like this...

Because of the frustration caused by warding off these red herrings and staying on track, I didn't want to wander off the beaten path to indulge philosophical meanderings. It bothers me when purgatory, other than being a later belief and has had multiple understandings in its vague "existence", is given a convenient philosophical coating to bring legitimacy to the doctrine. In my humble estimation, this is sophistry, pure and simple. So, I replied to this post with the following…

Now, although my response is critical of Ratzinger's statement, there is nothing personal about it, let alone any that could be offensive to Catholics. If one provides a statement like the above without there being any evidence of its reality, then we can muse "all the live long day" about it, but it remains nothing but words. At CAF, how often are the statements of Protestant leaders criticized and worse? Yet, is anything done about it by the administrators??? My intent was the statement and not the one making the statement. Getting into these types of dialogues makes the discussion tedious, but it seems that calling sophistry for what it is, gets you warned because of the status of the individual saying it and not for any other reason. I really doubt that there would have been much offense if Ratzinger were still a cardinal and theologian. It is deemed disrepectful of the faith of Catholics to criticize a statement from a pope, at least that's what it seems this moderator is infering. Needless to say, I'm still quite peeved, especially when one considers all the personal nonsense I've endured on that forum. So, I questioned this moderator, asking him if the same thing applies to those who criticize Protestant leaders. What I got was…

Again, remember, the CAF forums is replete with all sorts of personal attacks against Protestants, from past to present, Luther through MacArthur. To back it up, one only needs to read through the threads. Yet, one remark regarding one's own personal musings and I get a warning. Although I have no knowledge of the disciplines given to Catholics on the forum, it is hard to take this moderator's statements seriously when one sees the constant bantering given Protestants. So, I respond once again, explaining that no animosity was intended, but I still had to question him once more if the same standard is enforced for the likes of “John MaArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, James White, etc.” and the ol’ Churchmouse is told…

So, my statement is judged as "contempt for the Catholic faith"??? Calling one's statement "sophistry" (because it is) is ruled "contempt"??? The moderator continued by posting the list of CAF rules, with emphasis (red letters) as to where the violation was committed…

Is calling a statement made by a Catholic cleric "sophistry" disrespectful of the "faith of Catholics"??? How? It seems that one needs an infallible interpreter for these rules because the moderators don't seem capable of grasping a correct understanding. We Protestants can read them ourselves and ascertain what the rules mean without the need for outside sources. If one looks at rule 7 (which is really "8"), does my criticism of Ratzinger's statements compare to “Whore of Babylon, Holy Roller, Christ-killer, or terrorist”? Not at all. If one looks at rule 9 (which, in reality, is number 10 on their website), did I pursue speaking about the mods and their actions on the forum itself? Nope! This applies to those who use the forum to criticize a moderator's actions, of which I didn’t do. Maybe there is another deposit of rules which brings clarity to these rules that I am unaware of (and they cannot provide it for me because it is rooted in the traditions and practices of the forum and not outright). Yet, I am told by this moderator that I must give an affirmative not to break these rules, by midnight, to keep my account open…

I can abide by the rules as they are written. There's no problem there, but the way I see it...it's like this: If I give an affirmative then I would be acknowledging my comments to be "contempt for the Catholic faith and its leader" and that these rules apply to the situation. On another level, to affirm these would imply that Ratzinger's statements aren't sophistical in nature, which is something I cannot do because I believe they are. Please remember, I am not calling Ratzinger a Sophist, but only that his statement is sophistical. The moderator needs to understand that Ratzinger's writings are in the public forum and open to criticism. That's just the way it is.

Moral of the story: If you would like to participate on the Catholic Answers Forums, you must read through the rules and understand that words, such as contempt, are always left up to the discretion of the moderator in charge. He or she can interpret the rules in whatever way he or she deems fit. Whether or not it truly defines contempt really doesn’t matter. Furthermore, although the rules forbid any criticism of moderators or their actions on the forums, the moderator can put you under “review” anyway, which negates your posting privileges until you are able to see things their way (and you have until midnight of course). If you dare to disagree, question the fairness of the actions, or critique the process, well, prepare to have your account permanently closed. Sure, you can exercise the option of contacting the administrators if you'd like, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, especially when one sees the liberality practiced by Catholics who do the same to Protestants. They can continue as they please. If you are one who desires to speak freely without having to walk on eggshells, worrying if public statements are going to be deemed dishonestly, well this isn't the forum for you. Biased minds will find loopholes in the rules and you're a goner.

Addendum: Hmmm…maybe it’s contemptuous to refer to the pope as “Ratzinger” and not by his proper title, Pope Boniface XVI. Well, considering that I still view him as Joseph Alois Ratzinger and considering that I reject the concept of papism and its alleged charisms, I choose to refrain from advancing the title. So, if this is deemed “contemptuous”, well, that is something I can live with. You just can't please everyone, especially when it comes down to one's integrity.

Post addendum: I did get one last response from the moderator, which amounted to "see ya!" I mumbled something to the extent of "There is nothing new under the sun", which leads to my final graphic...

By the way, the word is "refusal" and not "refussal", right PRmerger? (<--inside joke).

CM

Turretinfan Responds to Steve Ray

2010-02-05T13:40:00.002-06:00

My online buddy, Turretinfan, has posted a series of responses to Steve Ray's rather loaded "35 Questions for Bible Christians." Turretinfan aptly dismantles each straw man systematically and provides clear responses to each question. When I get some time, I think I'll repost each entry here on the blog in a clear "1 through 35" format. It's a worthy read. You can visit his blog by clicking here.

Silence Isn't Always Golden: the Ignorance of GCN

2010-01-07T14:42:00.006-06:00

I posted another video dealing with the Gay Christian Network's misconstruction of the account of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). I've responded to their video "Were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for being gay?" by posting in their combox and via other videos I've posted, yet it seems they are very selective in the responses allowed. Oh well.

The following is a shorter video but one I believe nullifies Justin Lee's assertion that the account is merely about gang-rape and violent submission.

A New Endeavor

2009-11-23T14:58:00.005-06:00

It is no surprise that the sin of homosexuality is being promulgated as a legitimate lifestyle. Furthermore, it doesn't surprise me that homosexuals are attempting to legitimize their sin via Scripture. No verse is sacred if it can be conformed to the homosexual agenda, especially when conscience is concerned. I posted two videos on YouTube in response to a group called the "Gay Christian Network." It seems to be their practice not to post responses to their videos if it goes against their views. I hope to post more videos as time allows, but it saddens me to see the gospel of Christ being manipulated. Peter's words are key here...

"He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters [Scripture], speaking in them of these matters. His letters [Scripture] contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16)

Here's the first of the videos I posted.

The Maccabees Revisited: Purgatory Undone

2009-11-23T10:30:00.007-06:00

One of the worst things about the blogging world is when one can't keep up due to being ultra-busy. Don't get me wrong, it's fun to blog, but it can be rather disappointing when one can't finish what he started. Factor in complacency and the blog becomes an afterthought, only to be remembered from time to time. Become aware that it has been months since your last entry and you become aware that you don't have much to say. The blogosphere has become too big and you are oh so small. Oh, well.

I read a response from "Joe" to my blog entry "Purging purgatory from 2 Maccabees " some time back. I meant to respond but found myself getting complacent once again. A wife, four kids, church, and a time-consuming job can invoke complacency big-time. Yet, I will fight it off just to provide this response. Joe's words will be in blue, mine in black.

Before addressing the dogma of purgatory I must correct an error in your understanding of Catholicism. You claim that the statement below is Catholic teaching;“Those who die in a state of mortal sin cannot be prayed for. They are lost.”Whose soul would we pray for if not for that of a loved one who died in a state of mortal sin. No true Catholic would presume to know the disposition of anyone’s immortal soul nor believe that any soul is beyond the infinite mercy of The Lord.

Hi Joe,

I believe that the statement I made accurately sums up the Catholic position on mortal sin and, although Catholics don’t believe one can presuppose the state of anyone in the eternal, one can make a determination regarding the sin in which these men died. Therefore, in the Maccabean account, it is the 1st and 2nd commandment that is broken and that would involve mortal sin, thus cutting them from God, making it futile to pray from an alleged purgatory. To be fair, Catholics are told they can pray, this is part and parcel of Catholic doctrine, but my point has always been that there is inconsistency, especially when an obvious sin is committed and pointed out as the reason for their destruction (vs. 40). Considering that the nature of this sin implies the Catholic doctrine of mortal sin, these men went to hell, where prayer is ineffectual, and Judas’s eye seems to be on the resurrection, with the hope that the sin would be blotted from God’s remembrance as stated in the text. Again, this doesn’t imply a purgatory in the least, but an appeal to mercy in the Day of Judgment. Yet, these men didn’t die “godly” (vs. 45), which Judas presupposes, and winds up making quite the prayer request. Furthermore, if one assumes that their valiant actions, on behalf of a godly cause, would demand a more positive restitution, what about the “high places”, the pagan altars reused for the service of God? Was God pleased with His people's "noble" cause? What about Uzzah who evoked God’s anger when touching the Ark of the Covenant in an attempt to keep it balanced (2 Samuel 6:6-7; 1 Chronicles 13:9-10)? Was God pleased with his "noble" effort?

I would challenge your disbelief in purgatory in two ways, both in the case of the scripture you mention and using general logic. I would start with a definition of purgatory. Purgatory describes the state of soul that has not been damned but that requires purification before being worthy of the presence of God.

I am familiar with the doctrine of purgatory and there is really nothing to challenge. I believe that purgatory is an offshoot of the Catholic view of sin, a manmade doctrine. Furthermore, I don’t think that we can “rationalize” it into existence just because fallible human beings tend to categorize.

If the fallen comrades in 2 Macabbees had been judged at the moment if death, there would be no point in praying for them or offering sacrifices for them. If they are saints in the presence of The Lord, they require no sacrifice. If they are damned, there is no reason to sacrifice for them. The text clearly suggests a third state where prayers and sacrifice would be of use.

Or Judas could be making it up as he goes along, considering these men died for what he perceived a godly cause, so he acted upon his presumptions, thus you’re posing a false dilemma. I really don’t know how you can surmise that this demands a third state when Judas’s actions seem to appeal to God’s mercy in the Day of Judgment. In other words, if there were no purgatory inflicted INTO the verse, it winds up being a prayer for God’s mercy and involves actions based on hopes for His forgiveness and forgetfulness. Purgatory is simply being forced in.

I would also ask you consider how God (who is the source of our understanding of justice) could not allow for a purgatorial state. Take 2 cases;

1. The Blessed Virgin Mary who was without sin, was perfectly obedient to God, and mother to the Jesus.

2. A pedophile and murderer (who rapes, torments, steals innocence, destroys families and kills children) who, in his last hours of life repents for his sins and accepts Jesus. Surly there must be mercy for even so twisted a soul. But that soul cannot expect to be immediately received into Gods presence in same fashion as Mary after a life so full of egregious sin.

Why not? Why can’t a pedophile and murderer sincerely repent and turn to Christ, even in his last hours, and still enter the kingdom? What about Paul who persecuted the church and responsible for the murders of Christians? What about the thief who was told that “TODAY” he would be with Christ in paradise? Is it possible that God be that merciful? I believe that God can without the need for afterlife purification and there is no reason to believe that one must go through a purification process, in the afterlife, in order to attain heaven when the blood of Christ is perfect and able to cleanse us perfectly.

Just couple of points to consider.....You may also want to look at;1 Corinthians 3:11-15

I already commented on this in another blog entry. Purgatory doesn’t factor in. Read: http://churchmouse57.blogspot.com/2006/07/lets-look-at-1-corinthians-312-15.html

Luke 12:58-59

I don’t see anything “purgatorial” about the verses. If we interpret them on a spiritual level, there really isn’t any way to pay the “very last cent” (NASB), because we don’t possess the ability to pay for our sins. Only Christ can do this. Besides, you pose a bit of a conundrum because the Catholic position doesn’t claim that purgatory is for “payment” but for cleansing. I really don’t think you want to go further then what the verses plainly state.

Thinking of converting to Rome?

2009-02-20T12:43:00.005-06:00

Think about what you're converting to. From my friend Jim Swan on his blog, a must read on conversion stories

After a long hiatus...

2009-01-17T14:35:00.005-06:00

Click this link. Head over to "index" link, then to the "Chicago" link, and finally the "Virgin Mary Wall" link. This happened way back in April of 2005. Yet, as we drove by it last week, we see that the water stain is gone, but the flowers and candles continue to be replenished day to day. Hmmm...wonder where's the "correcting church" when you need it? A little John 21:29 for what ails the soul...

Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

Amen and amen.

From Jesus through Mary

2007-08-17T10:59:00.000-05:00

Here ye, Here ye! Found on the internet...

Top Ten Reasons Why We Should Consecrate Our Lives To Jesus Through Mary

1. To emulate the sanctity of our previous Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, who selected the de Montfort Consecration (True Devotion) for his own Marian Spirituality

2. To provide the easiest, safest, fastest, most secure, and surest path to Jesus and to our own salvation

3. To obtain Our Lady's help in bringing us from our own unworthiness to the level of conversion, holiness, and perfection in our lives needed to enable us to become saintly

4. To turn our lives over completely and without reservation in service to Jesus through Mary to reflect our love and our trust in them now and for all eternity.

5. To obtain special graces and protection under Our Lady's sheltering mantle

6. To help bring others to Jesus through Mary for their conversion, holiness, and perfection through this total consecration devotion

7. To hasten the day of the Triumph of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart and the day when Mary and Jesus will reign in all hearts

8. To fulfill Our Lady's request for individual consecration of our lives to her Immaculate Heart, as given to us through Sister Lucia during the Fatima apparitions

9. To become an effective counter-force to the legion of evil so prevalent in the world by offering up our prayers, sacrifices, and sufferings to Jesus through Mary

10. To renew our Baptismal promises and to evangelize the world to Jesus through Mary

Now if one promises to do the above they will receive...

...a free Saint Louis de Montfort Total Consecration package, anywhere in the world, at no cost to you, if you pledge to use the package to Consecrate your life to Jesus through the Blessed Virgin Mary (for full text see here)

We go to the Scriptures and fail to find one instance of anyone going to Jesus through Mary. The message of Scripture is that we have an advocate to the Father in the Son. It defeats the purpose of the gospel-- where we find an advocate in Christ (1 John 2:1), the "only one" mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5)-- if we need another advocate to get to the Son. But within Roman Catholicism, we find Mary as both an advocate for us and an mediatrix to Christ. Even at the feast at Cana (where Catholics attempt to derive from this story a spiritual application to Mary), no one went through Mary to get to Christ. Mary simply asked Christ upon hearing of the dilemma and was rebuked for attempting to "speed up" His ministry. The writer goes on to cite some early fathers, but nothing earlier then the late 3rd century (granting that these are cited within their context).

In a church were there are many "mysteries" this is surely an oddity. I guess that's what happens when one incorporates the fallibilities of human reasoning. You wind up with sophistry.

Cruising around the WWW

2007-08-14T11:03:00.000-05:00

Every now and then I look around the web to see if anyone has written anything that's bypassed me. I've found some good things and some bad in regards to my articles. Some demand more attention then others do and some, due to time constraints, will remain in the backburner until I'm free to devote some time to them. Some I don't feel the need to respond to given that the writer(s) haven't really refuted anything I've put on my blog (or any of the articles I've written for Jim's blog for that matter). Although, I may eventually respond to these as well. Well, I found a response to my article Onesiphorus in Purgatory?, by a poster who calls himself "Mad Dawg." The article itself was submitted by a poster named "Ottofire" on the Free Republic forums. The responses are over a year old, but I registered on the forum and am presently awaiting approval. My intent is to let "Mad Dawg" know of my response here.

Mad Dawg's words will be in blue blockquote, any citations will be in brown blockquote, and my response will remain in black and standard format....

The first thing to say is that this is sloppy. What exactly does "according to Rome" mean? Is the statement de fide, an opinion, or what? and "the majority of us" is the majority of whom, please? Certainly we'd guess that the majority of those whose final stop is heaven will spend some time in purgatory, but that's not doctrine.

“According to Rome” means according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. I’m sure he is fully capable of understanding that Purgatory is a de fide teaching and, yes, it is understood that the majority of Christians, with the exception of martyrs and saints, WILL be going to purgatory. I never said that the amount of those going there is a “doctrine” but only that this is what is proclaimed by Catholics. I base the latter on my experience as a Catholic, on the dialogues I've had with Catholic clergy and laity and from the Catholic apologists I’ve interacted with.

ALL of those who "endure", as churchmouse puts it, Purgatory, will end up in Heaven. Purgatory is an interval, a way station, a pause, and from the point of view of eternity, almost a triviality. SO I think it's tendentious to call it "quite an oversight."

I am only using a word (endure) which has been used by many Catholics in my discussions. I think the word is appropriate considering this is ultimately what those in “purgatory” must do, they must "endure" the temporal punishments, the purgings, while awaiting their release (regardless of how instantaneous or prolonged it may be) to heaven. Mad Dawg trivializes the concept almost to the point of it being just a mere "waiting period" in a sea of infinity but this wasn't always the case. Prior to the Reformation, the emphasis was great on purgatory which was portrayed as a realm to which the souls were subjected to suffering in fire. How Rome portrayed the concept of purgatory historically is downplayed today. Yet, considering that the majority of Christians will go to purgatory, it isn’t a triviality, its impact on Christians cannot be downplayed, thus it speaks volumes that the “state/realm/place” where most Christians go doesn’t muster a single clear passage in Scripture. Instead, we are told that there are “implications” of the doctrine within it, but there is no evidence that these "implications" were interpreted as such by the early church? As medieval scholar Jacques Le Goff proves in his book The Birth of Purgatory, the concept didn't appear in the writings of the church until Clement of Alexandria and Origen. They were those who planted the seeds that would lead to a full-blown doctrine several centuries later. Thus, there is no purgatory in which to call an “…interval, a way station, a pause…” or even a “triviality.”

As a matter of fact, we do not "Realize" that,l and that statement is indicative of the lack of care which characterizes this attempt at a refutation. What churchmouse can reasonably say is that we have no surviving record from before Origen and Clement of "afterlife purgatorial thought". He cannot conclude from that that "there was nothing which even remotely resembled ...." He does not know. (or if He does know, he doesn't show us how he knows.

Using the same logic, the absence of any “surviving record” can mean there was no purgatory to teach. Yet, there are other ways of gleaning that no such concept was being taught in the early church. Not only is there no evidence of it being taught prior to Clement of Alexandria and Origen, but even even Augustine regarded it to be a theory. The question arises: How does one theorize that which is claimed to have been taught historically by the church? Either it was taught or it wasn’t and there would be no need for “theories” if it was truly a teaching of the church. In light of this, Mad Dawg's appeal to silence really doesn’t make much sense. And, yet there are other ways to show that the church didn't teach purgatory, but we'll get to this in a bit.

Succumbing to the temptation to present conjecture as known and demonstrated fact is easy and hard to avoid. In this case it casts doubt on the reliability of the writer.

As I have shown, it is hardly conjecture and CAN be derived from the history of the church. Rather, it is completely illogical to assume that a belief in a purgatory was the norm when there isn't any evidence of even the "recognition" of the concept. Again, why claim it as an Apostolic teaching when these same men aren't aware of such a teaching in the church and are left to speculate it? If purgatory were truly a teaching of the church then WHAT is there to speculate. It seems Mad Dawg's attempt to cast “doubt” isn’t grounded considering he is the one who assents to purgatory, yet doesn't provide any evidence that the church truly taught the concept.

And that doubt is justified, since we find Tertullian writing in the early 200's about 'sacrifices' for the dead being a custom of Christians. I think that would count as "before Origen" and as remotely resembling.

Tertullian doesn’t justify the concept. Le Goff clearly proves that Tertullian held no concept of purgatory in his eschatology. Tertullian believed in the concept of refrigerium (see the link below) which is much like the Orthodox. He believed in an intermediate place (Abraham’s Bosom and the hell of the damned of Luke 16) where the dead enjoy a “foretaste” of their eternal destiny, the righteous in Abraham's Bosom and the wicked in the hell of the damned. There is no comparison. For further evidence of what Tertullian believed, see my blog article here: Purgatory and the earliest Fathers

I wonder what churchmouse thinks of the doctrine of the Trinity and and its mention or lack thereof in the early days.

You know, I’ve always viewed this as a red herring. I don’t need the word “Trinity” present, front and center, to validate what Scripture teaches regarding the Godhead. I view the Trinity as a logical extension of Scripture. The "early days"? What did the Fathers see in the "early days"? Did they appeal to a longstanding “tradition” in the church regarding the Trinity? Or did they appeal to what I use—Scripture! For example, Augustine stated:

"For we behold and see as it were in a divine spectacle exhibited to us, the notice of our God in Trinity, conveyed to us at the river Jordan. For when Jesus came and was baptized by John, the Lord by His servant (and this He did for an example of humility; for He showeth that in this same humility is righteousness fulfilled, when as John said to Him, 'I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?' He answered, 'Suffer it to be so now, that all righteousness may be fulfilled'), when He was baptized then, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit came down upon Him in the form of a Dove: and then a Voice from on high followed, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' Here then we have the Trinity in a certain sort distinguished. The Father in the Voice,-the Son in the Man,-the Holy Spirit in the Dove. It was only needful just to mention this, for most obvious is it to see. FOR
THE NOTICE OF THE TRINITY IS HERE CONVEYED TO US PLAINLY AND WITHOUT LEAVING ROOM FOR DOUBT AND HESITATION. For the Lord Christ Himself coming in the form of a servant to John, is doubtlessly the
Son: for it cannot be said that it was the Father, or the Holy Spirit. 'Jesus,' it is said, 'cometh;' that is, the Son of God. And who hath any doubt about the Dove? or who saith, 'What is the Dove?' when the Gospel itself most plainly testifieth, 'The Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove.' And in like manner as to that voice there can be no doubt that it is the Father's, when He saith, 'Thou art My Son.' THUS THEN WE HAVE THE TRINITY DISTINGUISHED." (Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, 2:1)

And what about his mentor Ambrose who stated...

""God, then, is One, without violation of the majesty of the eternal Trinity, as is declared in the instance set before us. And not in that place alone do we see the Trinity expressed in the Name of the Godhead; but both in many places, as we have said also above, and especially in the epistles which the Apostle wrote to the Thessalonians, he most clearly set forth the Godhead and sovereignty of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit....But if you require the plain statement of the words in which Scripture has spoken of the Spirit as Lord, it cannot have escaped you that it is written: 'Now the Lord is the Spirit.' Which the course of the whole passage shows to have been certainly said of the Holy Spirit....So he not only called the Spirit Lord, but also added: 'But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. So we all with unveiled face, reflecting the glory of the Lord, are formed anew into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord the Spirit;' that is, we who have been before converted to the Lord, so as by spiritual understanding to see the glory of the Lord, as it were, in the mirror of the Scriptures, are now being transformed from that glory which converted us to the Lord, to the heavenly glory." - Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit, 3:14:94, 3:14:101-102)
And Basil certainly wouldn't agree that Scripture is unclear on the matter...

"But all who maintain that either Son or Spirit is a creature, or absolutely reduce the Spirit to ministerial and servile rank, are far removed from the truth. Flee their communion. Turn away from their teaching, They are destructive to souls. If ever the Lord grant us to meet, I will discourse to you further concerning the faith, to the end that you may perceive at once the power of the truth and the rottenness of heresy by Scriptural proof." (Letter 105)

And then there is Gregory of Nyssa who said...

"For that there is a Word of God, and a Spirit of God, powers essentially subsisting, both creative of whatever has come into being, and comprehensive of things that exist, is shown in the clearest light out of the Divinely-inspired Scriptures." (The Great Catechism, 4)

And Hilary of Potiers claimed that he knew of the Trinity through his study of Scripture before he heard the Nicene Creed (forgive me if the Greek fonts don't translate)...

"I call the God of heaven and earth to witness, that when I had heard neither word, my belief was always such that I should have interpreted o0moiou/sion by o0moou/sion. That is, I believed that nothing could be similar according to nature unless it was of the same nature. Though long ago regenerate in baptism, and for some time a bishop, I never heard of the Nicene creed until I was going into exile, but the Gospels and Epistles suggested to me the meaning of o0moou/sion and o0moiou/sion." (On the Councils, or the Faith of the Easterns,
91)

Overall, I'm in good company. I see the Trinity in Scripture without the need for councils, but cannot derive a purgatory in the same way.

But I guess it needs to be said yet
again that the role of "proof from Scripture" is very different in Orthodoxy and
Catholicism from what it is in much of Protestantism.
Excuse typos, etc. In haste here ...

If I asked for “proof from tradition” would Mad Dawg be able to produce purgatory for me? And, ironically, he demeans the Protestant rule of faith and parallels his view with the Orthodox, but regardless of Scripture, tradition, or the authority of the church the Orthodox hold to no such doctrine and yet, claim the same antiquity as Rome. Why is it that the Orthodox share the same history, yet completely deny purgatory? How can one church claim that it was an apostolic teaching while the other denies it was ever taught, yet both claim to have received their teachings from the Apostles? And we are talking about a church that split with the West in the early 11th century? This implies that there was no real purgatorial view in the West until after the schism and none in the East? I think the answer is obvious folks—there was no such teaching in the church and the concept arose later through the musings of two Greek church fathers which would eventually lead to a full-blown belief in purgatory for the West.

On Sola Fide and Canon

2007-08-13T14:57:00.000-05:00

Xavier, a Catholic participant at the Bereans Forums, commented and questioned some things I stated regarding Sola Fide. Considering his post also implicates canon issues, I thought I would post it here. If there is a question of context, I would ask that the reader review the original thread found here What Sola Fide Is/Isn't

Xavier's comments will be in blue font and blockquote. Mine's comments remain as is. Citations are in green font and Scripture verses in brown. He states:

It is essential to point out why this statement is misleading.

1.Martin Luther who first defined Sola Fide never thought that works was essential for justification. This is why he had reservation about the canonicity of James. He exerted considerable effort to have James bracketed with the deuterocanonicals all because James was very clear about the role of works in justification.

The doctrine is justification by Faith alone not by Faith and acts of Faith alone.

You are misrepresenting Luther. There were other factors by which Luther judged the epistle of James, the first being that it was questioned in the early centuries of the Church (along with 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, etc.). This is why he held Paul’s view regarding justification over James, of whom Luther thought put a great emphasis on works. The only “misleading” being done here is in your attempt to draw a conclusion by associating his criticism of James TO his views on Sola Fide. Luther recognized clearly that a faith that is alone is no true faith at all. Why else would he state…

“Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.” (Luther’s Works 69:46, 20).

“Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith…” (Luther’s Works 34:111)

Again, all the way up to the time of the Reformation, the Catholic Church had no fixed canon and various views abounded as to what comprised canon. Contemporaries of Luther, such as Erasmus, who published the first Greek New Testament in 1516, questioned the canonicity of books such as James, Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, Revelation, etc. and cites Jerome as an authority. Cardinal Cajetan, the same who opposed Luther, in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament commends Jerome for separating the canonical from the uncanonical. We all know that Jerome excluded books which Trent later deemed “canonical.” Cajetan goes even further and brings up Jerome’s skepticism of the book of Hebrews. As Lutheran theologian J.A.O Preus II rightly states in his expository The New Testament Canon in the Lutheran Dogmaticians…

Thus, when Luther in 1522 published his German New Testament with its much-quoted strictures on Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, he was re-echoing some rather common, though new, thinking of the period. In other words, if Trent had not condemned Luther, his views perhaps would have gone largely unnoticed. Luther rejected these books partly on the basis of historical precedent and partly on the basis of his own rather subjective criterion of canonicity, namely, their seeming lack of witness to Christ.

And then there was Cardlnal Ximenes who, in his Complutensian Polyglot Bible, distinguishes between the apocryphal and the canonical books. My whole point in telling you all this is to show you how you tend to isolate Luther and paint him into someone who would stop at nothing to promote a Sola Fide devoid of works, even at the cost of endorsing the “Luther hated James” straw man once again.

2.Faith alone and Faith that is not alone mutually excludes each other. If Faith
is taken with Charity and Hope, then it is not alone. Faith + Charity +Hope does
not equal Faith Alone. Faith + good works does not equal Faith Alone.

Once again, this is but semantics on your part. The Protestant position is that salvation comes by “faith alone.” That’s it! There is nothing to add to salvation. However, the salvation which comes via “faith alone” does NOT present itself empty, devoid of works. This salvation presents its legitimacy by the works which comes as a result of that salvation. It is a byproduct of true salvation. It is not “faith + good works” but faith alone which results in good works through Christ.

3. St James made it very clear that good works was not a result of justification
but that justification resulted from good works.

Where does James say that justification “results” from good works? You are evidently reading something into James that he isn’t saying, but we’ll see this as we go on.

James 2:21-24
21Was not Abraham our father justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

22So you can see that his faith was working together with his deeds; his faith became perfect by what he did.

23In this way the scripture was fulfilled: Abraham put his faith in God, and this was considered as making him upright; and he received the name 'friend of God'.

24You see now that it is by deeds, and not only by believing, that someone is justified.

25There is another example of the same kind: Rahab the prostitute, was she not justified by her deeds because she welcomed the messengers and showed them a different way to leave?

As shown by James, Faith and Works are distinct but inseparable when it comes to salvation. And this is also taught by Paul who taught that God will give to each person according to what he has done.

It must be remembered that James is addressing “Christians’ who, evidently (from the context of the verse), aren’t helping brethren in need, but WHERE is James equating works to salvation? Especially in light of what other Scriptures say about “salvation” apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 4:5; Titus 3:5). Usually, it has been my experience to see Catholics isolating these verses FROM what Scripture states elsewhere, but here you divorce these verses from vss. 17-18 where James state very clearly…

Even so, if it does not have works, faith is dead, being by itself. But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith from my works.

Furthermore, preceding these verses, James speaks of the hypocrisy of saying one has faith, but fails to help their brethren when they are in need…

If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and if one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them those things which are needful to the body, what good is it? (James 2:15-16)

Who is it that James is speaking to here? It is the church, to those who claim to be Christians. Given this fact, no, James is NOT saying that works “save.” These folks believe to be saved already. Neither is he saying that the equation of faith and works brings salvation. He is rebuking those who allow needy brethren to walk away in their need under the false superficial religiosity that only serves to disprove their faith. James is telling them the truth—it is “dead faith” to think that salvation exists in a vacuum, void of good works. The type of faith that leads to justification is evidenced by the works which proves this faith. Again, one cannot take verses out of their context and out of what Scripture states as a whole to make a case for their own biases.

Sometimes we need to reawaken...

2007-08-10T17:15:00.000-05:00

So many people, young and old, profess to be Christians. Many deceive themselves into thinking that, because they accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, they are therefore "saved." They get caught up in the emotionalism of their "salvation" but never truly show the change that comes with being a child of God. Their lives reflect what they've had before their "conversion", a life without the fruits worthy of repentance. They are "saved" but dishonor their parents. They are "saved" but continue to dress in a manner that dishonors God. Some claim to be "saved" but abuse alcohol and drugs. They are the ones found in churches lifting their hands in praise on Sunday and living like the "unsaved" on Monday. They profess that they "gave their lives to the Lord", but it is clear that all they did was mentally assent to a notion that--by saying a small prayer--they are somehow miraculously "saved." The life of repentance is lost under the delusion of their prefabricated assumptions about salvation. Only Christ is able to bring convinction of sin. Only Christ is capable of saving the sinner. Only Christ is capable of bringing a change in the sinner because He is the Author and Finisher of our faith. Our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), we are unclean, thus the only righteousness God will accept is the righteousness of His Son.

Pastor Paul Washer of HeartCry Missionary Society, who has worked in a variety of missions, such as Romania, Peru and Zambia, preached an eye-opening "in your face" sermon before a gathering of 5,000 people. It is a sermon which speaks to all. It is a cry for repentance in the church. Please listen with an open mind and an open heart. For those with slower connection speeds, you can download the mp3 file via Sermon Audio here: A Shocking Message to the Church

(*Before viewing the video, don't forget to turn off the music. You can do so by going to the bottom of this page and clicking the pause button)

Purgatory and the earliest Fathers

2007-03-30T17:29:00.000-05:00

Over at the Bereans Forums, a Catholic apologist who goes by the tag of "catholic philosopher", wrote to inform me that he was going to engage my articles on purgatory. True to his word, today he posted a response (My original words are in brown, his words in blue, my response is in black, all citations are in purple):

2Maccabees 12:44 - For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.

Churchmouse: Again, this passage pertains to the resurrection. The dead CAN rise again without inflicting a purgatory into the mix. Also, why must it be purgatory that Judas is implying? What if Judas was of the view that God can forgive and forget sin before the general judgment? So far, the implication Judas leaves us with is that if one dies in sin then one can pray that his sins be forgotten.

catholic_philosopher: Judas is implying purgatory since he probably believed that NOTHING UNCLEAN CAN ENTER HEAVEN. This men were UNCLEAN and for them to enter heaven, they must be “purged” from their filthiness. That’s why they prayed for the souls of the dead men just like Catholics pray for their dead loved ones.

You didn’t interact with what I stated regarding the Catholic concept of mortal sin (of which idolatry, which is the sin of these men, is considered) and the conclusion it leads to. Judas COULDN’T have had purgatory or the “UNCLEAN” in mind because these men would have been damned. You can’t argue for one position you adhere to and negate the other position you adhere to. Again, Judas was “mindful of the resurrection” and not purgatory. Neither is there any evidence of this being an orthodox belief on Judas’ part because the other simply states that “Judas” perceived that the godly (of which they evidently weren’t) gained favor and that it as a “holy and good thought” (vs.45).

Churchmouse: Understand that the book was written by an "epitomizer" of “Jason the Cyrene” and he’s speaking about Judas Maccabeus. From his vantage point, he assumes that Judas is of the thought that these men may have died godly due to their service to God and regardless of their blatant disobedience to the law. Judas believed in the resurrection, thus he prayed for them. The writer assumes this to be a “good and holy thought.” Judas does the “reconciliation” because he believed they may be delivered from their sins. Again, all this is written with the resurrection in mind and all the Catholic can do is inflict “purgatory” and assume that this is what Judas is implying, but there really is no reason to believe this to be the case considering it doesn’t say how this “deliverance” is to take place. Judas could have assumed that God would merely forget their sins due to their servitude sans a purgatory. IOW, there is no reason to believe that Judas, much less the Jewish people, implied or believed in a purgatory, but could have believed that God could forgive sins after death forthright.

catholic_philosopher: I respect the author’s opinion. But methinks, and I reiterate, Judas is implying purgatory since he probably believed that NOTHING UNCLEAN CAN ENTER HEAVEN. That’s why he and his men prayed. I don’t think they can stand before God’s holiness when they have died with venial sins. There’s an intermediate state for the cleansing of the souls. It’s just a matter of putting a name on it. Catholics call it PURGATORY, where there is purging. You, Protestants, can call it whatever you want it to be called. But what’s most important is that there is an intermediate state.

And I respect yours, but I reiterate that Judas was acting on his own, under his own perceptions, and this is what the “epitomizer of Jason the Cyrene” is indicating. The “epitomizer” doesn’t say that this was common thought, but that it was Judas’ thoughts. One thing to consider is the advent of Rabbis Hillel and Shammai about 2 centuries later which influenced Jewish thought immensely. In their writings we find the ponderings regarding afterlife purgatory. Shammai theorized the possibility and Hillel, although believing in an intermediate state (as Jesus alluded to in Luke 16), didn’t believe it was purgatorial. If Judas did indeed reflect a purgatorial thought, why would one sage be theorizing and the other denying almost two centuries later?

Just a question to the author. IF YOU DIE NOW, DO YOU THINK YOU ARE HOLY AND PURE ENOUGH TO FACE GOD IN HIS HOLY PRESENCE? Be honest!

I don’t know how this would matter in terms of our discussion. The discussion isn’t about how I perceive myself because, if there is no purgatory, then there must be something, or rather Someone else who purifies us and makes us holy. What I perceive and what God does are two different things because God’s ways are not our ways. And the Christian life is a life of growing in sanctification. If there is no growth then I would question one’s Christianity. So, in light of this, yes, IN Christ I will be holy and pure enough to face God in his holy presence. He is our covering and our sanctification. I assume you have Hebrews 12:14 when asking this question. If we were going to use the wooden literality of the term “holiness” then Job 1 would make no sense. After all, the most unholy of all is not only standing before Him, but speaking to Him as well. Therefore, the holiness being spoken of in Hebrews 12:14 must be speaking of something else and and not a purity that is required to see Him.

Churchmouse: In ending, it seems the passages in 2 Maccabees 12 aren’t any more provocative then the common Scripture verses Catholics claim imply a purgatory. Truth is, Catholics cannot uphold this as evidence of a purgatorial belief anymore then the passages they claim from our common Scriptures. Again, there are no early writings which would corroborate that the early church viewed these passages to be purgatorial. Instead, as they do the common Scriptures, they seek implications and read their doctrine back into them.

catholic_philosopher: There are no early writings in the early church for purgatory? The most explicit extra-biblical evidence for the belief in the doctrine of purgatory in the ancient Church is found in its liturgies. Without exception, in the East and the West, the various Eucharistic liturgies contained at least one memento mori, “remembrance of the dead.” There would have been no point in praying for the dead if it was certain that they were already in heaven, as they would have no need of prayers. If they were in hell, prayer could do them no good. But the Church knew then, as she does now, that there is a “middle state” where some who die in the state of grace and are assured of their salvation can benefit from our prayers.

The problem with this is that the early church can pray for the “remembrance of the dead” without injecting a purgatorial thought into the mix. The church CAN pray for the dead independent of a purgatory and this is what the evidence reveals. Medieval historian and scholar, Jacques Le Goff, clears this up:

Finally, some of these texts describe a place which, though quite similar to the "bosom of Abraham," is not always identical with it: the refrigerium. A number of funerary inscriptions bear the words refrigerium or refrige-rare (refreshment, to refresh), either alone or in conjunction with the word pax (peace): in pace et refrigerium, esto in refrigerio (may he be in refrigerium), in refrigerio anima sua (may his soul be in refrigerium], deus refrigeret spiritum tuum (may God refresh his spirit).

An excellent philological study by Christine Mohrmann has clearly traced the semantic evolution of refrigerium from classical to Christian Latin: "Alongside these rather vague and shifting definitions, the words refrigerare and refrigerium took on, in Christian idiom, a very definite technical meaning: heavenly happiness. We find refrigerium used in this sense as early as Tertullian, in whose writing it denotes both the temporary happiness of souls awaiting the return of Christ in the bosom of Abraham, according to Tertullian's own conception of the matter, and the everlasting good fortune of Paradise, which is enjoyed by martyrs from the time they die and which is promised to the elect after the final divine verdict.. . Among later Christian writers refrigerium is used in a general way to denote the joys of the world beyond the grave, promised by God to the elect.

"Refrigerium has a special place in the prehistory of Purgatory only because of the personal conception of Tertullian, to which Mohrmann alludes in the above paragraph. Indeed, as we have seen, refrigerium denotes a quasi-paradisaical state of happiness and not a place. But Tertullian imagined a special kind of refrigerium, the refrigerium interim or "interim refreshment" reserved for certain of the dead, singled out by God as worthy of special treatment during the period of their death and the time of final judgment (The Birth of Purgatory, Ch.1, pp. 46-47).

As Le Goff rightly states, these prayers (the one’s you say are found in ancient liturgies) don’t reflect a purgatorial thought. One can pray for “refrigerium”, a refreshing of heavenly happiness. To put it within your perspective, prayers for the dead DON’T have to be pigeonholed into a “There would have been no point in praying for the dead if it was certain that they were already in heaven, as they would have no need of prayers. If they were in hell, prayer could do them no good” concept because some in the early church CAN and DID pray for refrigerium. So, yes, one can pray for the dead in the early church WITHOUT adhering to a purgatorial concept.

Here are some of the Church Fathers and what they have to say about Purgatory:

Before we begin, let me just state that I acknowledge that some fathers held to a view that figured into the prehistory of Purgatory, but these are later fathers. Earlier fathers, such as Tertullian, spoke of an intermediate state that was paradisiacal in nature (as I will explain below) and others, such as Augustine, theorized the possibility, albeit they had no firm convictions regarding it. What is very telling indeed is the absence of any writings early on formalizing a belief in purgatory. Also, you may want to add where to find these citations. I had to put each through a search engine, just to find the citation came from and found them cited by a multitude of Catholic websites for the purpose of supporting purgatory.

Tertullian (160-225AD)“We offer sacrifices for the dead[24] on their birthday anniversaries" (211 AD)

"A woman, after the death of her husband ... prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice" (216 AD)

As Le Goff mentioned in the above passage, Tertullian believed in the refrigerium and held to no purgatorial understanding. Nothing in the passage you provided alludes to it in light of the refrigerium. Tertullian’s eschatology is somewhat like what the Eastern Orthodox teach, that the soul receives a foretaste of their eternal abode. The righteous in Abraham’s Bosom (or a state like it) and the wicked in the hell of the damned (see Luke 16:19-31), but there is no afterlife purgation in Tertullian’s eschatology. Again, Le Goff states regarding Tertullian (in its entirety, but pay attention specifically to the fourth paragraph which adds context to the citations you gave):

An African who died sometime after 220, Tertullian wrote a brief treatise, now lost, in which he argued "that every soul was confined in Hell until the Lord's [judgment] day" (De anima 55.5). This was an adaptation of the Old Testament idea of sheol. This other world was located under¬ground, and it was here that Christ descended for three days (De anima 54.4).

In Against Marcion and On Monogamy, Tertullian goes into detail about the other world and presents his concept of refrigerium. Marcion argued that not only martyrs but ordinary righteous people were admitted into Heaven or Paradise immediately after their death. Tertullian, on the other hand, basing his contention on the story of Lazarus and the rich man, maintains that, while awaiting resurrection, ordinary righteous souls reside, not in heaven, but in a refrigerium interim, the bosom of Abraham. This place, the bosom of Abraham, though not in heaven, and yet above hell, offers the souls of the righleous an interim refreshment [refrigerium interim] until the end of all things brings about the general resurrection and the final reward" (Adversus Marcionem 4.34). Until the end of time the bosom of Abraham shall serve as "the temporary receptacle of faithful souls.”

Tertullians’s thought in fact remains highly dualistic. In his view there are two contrasting fates: punishment, which is conveyed by such words as torment (tormentum), agony (supplicum), and torture (cruciatus), and reward, denoted by the term refreshment (refrigerium). In two places it is stated that these destinies are eternal.

On the other hand, Tertullian lays great stress on offerings for the dead on the anniversary of their deaths and asserts that pious practices may be based on tradition and faith even if there is no foundation for them in Scripture. (Broadly speaking, with the exception of Matthew 12:32 and Paul’s 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, textual underpinnings are almost entirely lacking for the doctrine of Purgatory.) Tertullian writes: “We make oblations for the deceased on the anniversary of their death…If you look in Scripture for a formal law governing these and similar practices, you will find none. It is tradition that justifies them, custom that confirms them, and faith that observes them” (De corona militis 3.2-3).

With regard to the prehistory of Purgatory, Tertullian’s innovation, if it was an innovation, was t have the righteous spend a period of time in refrigerium interim before coming to reside in eternal refrigerium. But there is nothing really new about the place of refreshment, which is still the bosom of Abraham. Between Tertullian’s refrigerium interim and Purgatory there is a difference not only of kind—for Tertullian it is a matter of a restful wait until the Last Judgment, whereas with Purgatory it is a question of a trial that purifies because it is punitive and expiatory—but also of duration: souls remain in refrigerium until the resurrection but in Purgatory only as long as it takes to expiate their sins.

All in all, CP, there is no purgatory in Tertullian’s eschatology. The citation you used is misleading in light of the fuller picture. But I’m assuming that you took it from another website.

St. Cyprian of Carthage (writing in 253AD) "The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord."

Again, Le Goff speaks about this:

"Some writers have credited Cyprian with making an important doctrinal contribution to Purgatory as early as the mid-third century. In his Letter to Antonian [Letter 51:20] Cyprian distinguishes between two kinds of Christians: 'It is one thing to await forgiveness and another thing to arrive in glory; it is one thing to be sent to prison [in carcere] to be let out only when the last farthing has been paid and another thing to receive immediately the reward of faith and virtue; it is one thing to be relieved and purified of one's sins through a long suffering in fire and another thing to have all of one's faults wiped out by martyrdom; and it is one thing to be hanged by the Lord on Judgment Day and another to be crowned by him at once.'...Jay's refutation of the notion that Cyprian put forth a doctrine akin to that of Purgatory seems to me well founded. According to Jay, what is being discussed in the letter to Antonian is the difference between Christians who did not stand up to persecution (the lapsi and apostates) and the martyrs. It is not a question of 'purgatory' in the hereafter but of penitence here below. The reference to imprisonment has to do not with Purgatory, which in any case did not yet exist, but rather with the penitential discipline of the Church." (The Birth of Purgatory, pp. 57-58)

St John Crysostom (347-407 AD)“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

I checked where the passage came from (Homilies on I Corinthians, 41:5) and didn’t find anything that would bring a purgatorial context to passage. In light of the other fathers, Chrysostom could be talking about anything here. Do you have anything else from him to qualify this passage differently then the others?

St. Augustine (354-430AD)“We read in the book of Maccabees that the sacrifice was offered for the dead, But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the universal Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at His altar the commendation of the dead has its place.

I’ll cite my buddy, Jason Engwer on this one:

Augustine is widely considered the father of Purgatory. Roman Catholics often quote him referring to something similar to the modern Catholic doctrine. But what these Catholics don't explain is that Augustine acknowledged that he was speculating. In other words, he wasn't passing on some apostolic tradition handed down in unbroken succession from the apostles. Rather, he was speculating about what might happen in the afterlife. Jacques Le Goff explains:

"[Joseph Ntedika] has put his finger on a key point, showing not only that Augustine's position evolved over the years, which was to be expected, but that it underwent a marked change at a specific point in time, which Ntedika places in the year 413....In the Letter to Dardinus (417) he [Augustine] sketches a geography of the otherworld which makes no place for Purgatory." (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], pp. 62, 70)

In other words, Augustine's views on the subject developed over time, and he was inconsistent. The Protestant historian George Salmon explains the significance of these facts:

"In like manner, when Augustine hears the idea suggested that, as the sins of good men cause them suffering in this world, so they may also to a certain degree in the next, he says that he will not venture to say that nothing of the kind can occur, for perhaps it may. Well, if the idea of purgatory had not got beyond a 'perhaps' at the beginning of the fifth century, we are safe in saying that it was not by tradition that the later Church arrived at certainty on the subject; for, if the Church had had any tradition in the time of Augustine, that great Father could not have helped knowing it." (The Infallibility of the Church [London, England: John Murray, 1914], pp. 133-134)

Here's an example of Augustine expressing his uncertainty:

"And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it." (The Enchiridion, 69)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386AD)“Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out"

Again, at best, this citation could be used to convey that Cyril believed that those in heaven are praying for us and that we can pray for them while in celebration of the Eucharist. Again, in light of other fathers before Cyril, we can’t just assume that these prayers are for those in a purgatory.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (writing in 375AD) "Useful too is the prayer fashioned on their behalf, even if it does not force back the whole of guilty charges laid to them. And it is useful also, because in this world we often stumble either voluntarily or involuntarily, and thus it is a reminder to do better"

I would like to see this in further context before I can comment. I understand this comes from his Panarium, but I can’t find it anywhere. I don’t know who he is directing the prayers to. It only states “on their behalf.” Who does the pronoun “their” refer to? How do you know if it is the dead being spoken of here? Maybe he did believe in afterlife purgation and, then again, maybe he didn’t. There is no way of really knowing. Besides, I think I got my point across.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, (writing in 382AD)"If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he have inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire" (Sermon on the Dead).

The same thing goes here. However, Origen and Clement of Alexandria lived within the 2nd to 3rd centuries. They proffered the possibility of afterlife purgation. There are fathers living during or past this point who sought the possibility as well. So, it is no surprise to see purgatorial thought develop throughout. However, there were other fathers who contradicted the thought of purgatory. Again, I cite my friend, Jason Engwer and his comments:

Clement of Rome always refers to deceased Christians being in Heaven. He repeatedly mentions the concept, with no reference to Purgatory. The RCC believes that *some* Christians don't have to go to Purgatory, but how could Clement of Rome and other church fathers know that a person was able to avoid Purgatory? Since they wouldn't have had such knowledge, the most likely explanation for their referring to deceased Christians being in Heaven seems to be that they had no concept of Purgatory. Clement writes:

"Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him....Thus was he [Paul] removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.... To these men who spent their lives in the practice of holiness, there is to be added a great multitude of the elect, who, having through envy endured many indignities and tortures, furnished us with a most excellent example. Through envy, those women, the Danaids and Dircae, being persecuted, after they had suffered terrible and unspeakable torments, finished the course of their faith with steadfastness, and though weak in body, received a noble reward....Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure from this world; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them....All the generations from Adam even to this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ." (First Clement, 5-6, 44, 50)

*******************************

Gregory Thaumaturgus seems to have had no concept of Purgatory. Like Protestants, he refers to two realms of the afterlife, not three, with all "good men" going to Heaven at death:

"And the good man shall depart with rejoicing to his own everlasting habitation; but the vile shall fill all their places with wailing, and neither silver laid up in store, nor proved gold, shall be of use any more. For a mighty stroke shall fall upon all things, even to the pitcher that standeth by the well, and the wheel of the vessel which may chance to have been left in the hollow, when the course of time comes to its end and the ablution-bearing period of a life that is like water has passed away." (A Metaphrase of the Book of Ecclesiastes, 12)

*******************************

Irenaeus didn't believe in the doctrine of Purgatory. We know that Jesus went to Paradise on the day of His crucifixion (Luke 23:43), and Irenaeus refers to all believers going to the same place until the time of resurrection. He also identifies this place as the place where Paul went in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. Irenaeus refers to all believers going to Paradise, which he distinguishes from Heaven, until the time of the resurrection. As I explained with regard to Papias, Paradise is just another *region* of what evangelicals refer to as "Heaven". Irenaeus' terminology is different from that of evangelicals, but his definitions are basically the same, as is proven by his references to Jesus going to this place and his reference to 2 Corinthians 12. Roman Catholicism tells us to pray that deceased Christians can be taken out of a place of suffering prior to the resurrection. Irenaeus, on the other hand, refers to all deceased Christians being in Paradise, not a place of suffering, until the resurrection:

"Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation of all things, as a prelude to immortality....For as the Lord 'went away in the midst of the shadow of death,' where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up into heaven, it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God. 'For no disciple is above the Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his Master.' As our Master, therefore, did not at once depart, taking flight to heaven, but awaited the time of His resurrection prescribed by the Father, which had been also shown forth through Jonas, and rising again after three days was taken up to heaven; so ought we also to await the time of our resurrection prescribed by God and foretold by the prophets, and so, rising, be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy of this privilege." (Against Heresies, 5:5:1, 5:31:2)

*********************************

Justin Martyr contradicted the doctrine of Purgatory, not only by referring to the redeemed going to a better place, but also by mentioning only two regions of the afterlife, not three. He seems to have no concept of people going to a third place, then being transferred to Heaven sometime before the judgment:

"The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment." (Dialogue with Trypho, 5)

***********************************

Athenagoras rejects the concept of Purgatory in favor of believers going to Heaven when they die. Not only does he say that believers go to Heaven, but he mentions Hell as the only alternative, without mentioning any Purgatory:

"For if we believed that we should live only the present life, then we might be suspected of sinning, through being enslaved to flesh and blood, or overmastered by gain or carnal desire; but since we know that God is witness to what we think and what we say both by night and by day, and that He, being Himself light, sees all things in our heart, we are persuaded that when we are removed from the present life we shall live another life, better than the present one, and heavenly, not earthly (since we shall abide near God, and with God, free from all change or suffering in the soul, not as flesh, even though we shall have flesh, but as heavenly spirit), or, falling with the rest, a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere by-work, and that we should perish and be annihilated." (A Plea for the Christians, 31)

Why would I believe in a writer that was born in the 20th century and writing against purgatory? I’d rather put my faith in what the Early Church Fathers taught.

Answer: Because you are being selective and assuming that these fathers are implying purgatory, but it first starts with the assumption that a purgatory does exist. And you further assume that there was consensus amongst all of the fathers on purgatory, when there evidently wasn’t.

The nearer the source, the clearer the water.

My point exactly! The closer we are to the early church, the more we realize the absence of any purgatorial concept.

I challenge the author to refute what the Church Fathers said about Purgatory.

I believe I have given ample reason to show that none of these fathers speak of purgatory. You can only assume they are. The earlier fathers don’t speak of any such concept, other later fathers aren’t exactly clear what they believe, some fathers theorize the concept, other fathers contradict any purgatorial concept, and other fathers may have believed in some type of afterlife purgation, albeit done before the resurrection, but not indicating how. The bottom line is that the church fathers believed all sorts of things and can be equated to any Christian writer, past and present, who indulge us with their POV’s and musings. They aren’t infallible. The bottom line is that you can only assume they are talking about purgatory, CP, under the pretense that a purgatory already exists. That’s become evident in your last sentence.

CM

The Voice of an Old Friend...

2007-02-14T13:30:00.000-06:00

I found this recently on YouTube. The life of Keith Green has been an inspiration to those growing up in my generation. He was a man who lived his life under the principle of "no compromise" to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, a mission-minded evangelical who left us all too soon. Yet, presently, he is where all Christians strive to be--rejoicing before our Lord in heaven. May the Lord raise up more "Keith Greens" to preach the uncompromised Gospel to those who will receive Him in this dying world.

In Memoriam: Our Beloved "Pebbles" 1991 - 2006

2006-10-25T12:09:00.000-05:00

Due to some work I’ve had to do and some health issues (I recently had an appendectomy and a hernia repaired), I haven’t had much time to blog. Eventually, I will be a bit more faithful in posting some thoughts that I hope you’ll find interesting, but for now, I break my silence in memory of “Pebbles”, our pet of the past 13 years who passed away last Sunday. Yes, for a guy to be writing this, I feel a bit corny, but what can I say-- I loved the ol' girl!

Needless to say, my kids are devastated as am I. She was a wonderful little munchkin, a bit temperamental at times (I think it was the Pekingese blood), but even on her off days she was a pleasure. We saw the writing on the wall the past few months. She was nearly blind due to glaucoma, was getting a bit slower due to arthritis, had quite a few accidents due to circumstances beyond her control, and eventually couldn’t make it up the smallest flight of stairs. Due to the accidents, I was forced to keep her in the basement at nights, but she would always scratch on the door in the morning, reminding us to let her out. Eventually, the scratches ceased because she couldn’t get up the stairs to the door and we would carry her up and down as she got worse. As time progressed, it became evident that her hind legs were becoming non-functional and she couldn’t take three steps before sitting down. Eventually, it got to the point where she couldn’t use them at all. Yes, the writing was on the wall. It was heartbreaking to see the condition she was in and our denial could only go so far. It culminated last Friday, when we went down to the basement to get her, but found her lying in her urine. This was the first time she couldn’t move enough to urinate. It was then that we realized it was time.

The following Sunday was surreal. I couldn't believe what we were about to do. My daughters accompanied me to the vet, hoping that it was a matter of a shot or two for "Pebs" to be as good as new, but the vet brought us back to reality, stating the obvious, compassionately explaining to us the process of euthanasia. He told us that Pebbles was the equivalent of a 105 year old (doggy years), a dog that has lived way beyond the life expectancy of her breed. To prolong it would mean that she'd only get worse. It would be a pretty selfish thing to put her through any more suffering. We knew it would be best to put her down, but we loved her and wanted her to stay. Yes, the vet was right, there was a whole lot of selfishness involved, but reality bites and we knew what we had to do. Needless to say, my daughters were in tears, but wanted to be present, out of love and support, to see her through her final moments.

(Bethany & Pebbles circa 1996)

The process was very humane—a sodium pentothal injection that would put her to sleep instantaneously. After explaining the process a bit further, they shaved a spot on her leg to locate a vein, gave her the injection and, no sooner then that, our beloved Pebbles was gone. I knew it would be a bit traumatic, and my daughters were sobbing frantically, but they wanted to be there. All I could do was comfort them. My mind wandered back to a time when my kids were “kids”, Pebs was just another one of the kids, and it really saddened me. Pebbles’ death reminded me that my kids really aren't kids anymore. My son, the oldest, is 21 and my daughters are 19, 17, and 15 years of age. I realized that, at that moment, Pebs wasn’t only our pet, but a doorway to a time that has long passed us. A simpler time when life involved running in the park, summers at the pool, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, My Little Pony and Barbie dolls, collecting Beanie Babies (Bongo the Monkey, where are you!!), training wheels on bicycles, Skittles, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, and bubblegum flavored ice cream. Wayne Watson's "Watercolour Ponies" was playing in my mind as I looked at Pebbles' body, at my daughter and their tears, but all I could do is caress my babies and cry with them.

When we got home, we all reminisced amongst yet more tears. When she came to live with us, she was about 2 years old, the victim of a “no pets” policy, her former owners moving to a new apartment. Sure, she wasn't the prettiest dog around, the product of an amorous Pekingese and a Pug (at least we think), but man was she a cutie! At least to us she was. “Pebs” fell in love with my daughter Bethany, who was about 6 years old at the time, and the two were instantly inseparable. They were chums, pals in the strictest sense of the word, and it became rare to see one without the other. On those occasions when Pebs got locked out of Bethany’s room, she would scratch on the door until someone let her in. It wasn’t long before Beth would be woken up by a cold nose and a wet tongue. And, if that didn’t work, Pebs would literally sit on her chest until she woke up. Pebbles was very protective and would get defensive if anyone she didn't know got near our kids. I was sure that she would stare danger in the eye and give everything she had to protect our children. She was a brave little thing and would stand up to any dog or anyone, even those who were six times (or more) her weight and size. She was fearless! She was a “jelly dog”, a nickname we gave her because she would get very jealous when there was a hug involved that didn’t include her. It was funny to see my girls hug each other purposely to see the way she would react. She would jump on them, claw away, and wriggle her way into the hug. She was just one of the girls. She was quirky. Other dogs will sit near the dinner table and stare at you pitifully until you gave them a morsel, but Pebs grabbed the bull by the horns—she would put her paws on your lap and bark you into submission. You'd find yourself practically giving your dinner away. Once you gave her the first taste, she'd munch it down and then repeat the process. Sure, it was a little annoying, but an annoyance I would gladly put up with if we could only have her back. When we'd run errands, we'd sometimes take her along for the ride. When we'd return, we'd tap on the car window and she'd attack the glass, barking ferociously at our hands tapping on the windows. She couldn’t stand it, but the faces she would make were hilarious. Pebbles was also very sociable and you would always find her in the room with the most people. She wasn’t embarrassed to get dressed up and didn’t mind the cowboy hat or a Santa Claus costume the girls would put on her. She was never particular about style. She had good instincts and we could let her outside knowing full well that she would always be back. She always knew which house was her home…but now…she’s gone…and it's sad to know she won’t be home anymore.

It’s been only three days since she passed away and “man!” do we miss her. The house seems a bit emptier and we still expect to see her around the corner, sleeping on her favorite patch of carpet, under the computer desk, or in Bethany’s room. We still expect the “jelly dog” to wriggle her way into our hugs. Our dinnertimes? Well, now they're silent. Old habits are hard to break and my son found himself saving some leftovers for her. He forgot she was gone. It’s amazing how these little guys just come into your lives, take over, get you loving them and treating them like royalty and, before you know it, they're gone. Yes, I expect that we will eventually go out and get another little guy. Who knows! It may be a Yorkshire or maybe a Corgi—but for now, we grieve and reminisce about our little Pebbles, who will always remain a part of our lives.

Dearest Lord Jesus, thank you for enriching our lives by providing this wonderful little dog. We will miss her and pray for Your comfort as we grieve, but she will always live in our memories and in our hearts. Again, we thank You and praise You for remembering our family and blessing us with the ability to care for one of Your creatures. Amen.

2 Timothy 1:16-19 - Onesiphorus in Purgatory???

2006-07-17T20:05:00.000-05:00

Seems I indirectly started a series on the Scriptures (and assumed “Scripture” verses) which are alleged to support purgatory. I think I will stay on this subject for awhile. I figure that if a refutation of the doctrine is to be made, it starts with the Scriptures Catholics claim imply a purgatory. With this in mind we go to 2 Timothy 1:16-19 which reads:

May the Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me, and he was not ashamed of my chain, but having come to Rome, he more diligently sought and found me. May the Lord give to him to find mercy from the Lord in that Day. And in what things he served in Ephesus, you know very well.

The argument usually goes like this:

From the context, it seems certain that Onesiphorus is dead (This is also the opinion of the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible; vol 3; p 603). Paul praises his Christian friend, Onesiphorus, for his good work, but notice Paul does not presume immediate entrance into heaven for his dear friend (Even if Onesiphorus is not dead, Paul still asks the Lord to be merciful). Why be merciful, if all Christians go straight to heaven? We either have Paul praying for a dead person, or we have him interceding for him for mercy on his judgment day. In either case, purgatory alone can explain such thoughts of Paul. If there is no purgatory, then Christians go straight to heaven, which is the popular Protestant belief. If this is so, then Paul's remarks are totally off base; it would be meaningless to ask mercy for Onesiphorus. Purgatory alone makes the passage coherent (see here Purgatory).

Onesiphorus was very faithful. In spite of Paul’s situation (remember Paul was chained to a soldier), he not only sought him out, but did so diligently. Paul was very thankful for his faithful disciple and bestowed his blessing upon him and his family. The context of the passage doesn’t really reveal if Onesiphorus is alive or dead. Paul could have easily stated the same if Onesiphorus was away or jailed; thus he bestows these blessing upon his family residing in Ephesus. The Roman Catholic priest who wrote this allows for the possibility that Onesiphorus is alive, which is a rarity considering many do not waver and claim he is dead. Yet, Catholic tradition state that Onesiphorus died in 81 A.D. (see here: St. Onesiphorus) and considering that these sources place Paul’s death at around 67 A.D. (see here: St. Paul) this would place Onesiphorus’ death some 14 years AFTER Paul. For those who insist that Onesiphorus is dead in the passage, this would be a case where a Catholic tradition contradicts Catholic apologetics.

Yet, the writer assumes that a purgatory is implied even if Onesiphorus is alive and he bases this on Paul’s prayer for mercy on “that Day.” This is a leap in logic considering that God can grant mercy at the general Judgment without the need for a purgatory. This would entail reading purgatory into the verse. There is no reason to jump this far considering that the fact that God allows us into heaven is based on His mercy. But why did Paul specifically pray for mercy upon Onesiphorus, especially if there was no reason to? It can be gathered from the context of the verse that Paul was merely being reciprocal to the house of Onesiphorus. In other words, he prays for mercy upon Onesiphorus because Onesiphorus had mercy on him with his visits. There is no need to inflict purgatory into the verses when there is nothing which lends to it.

In closing, I must mention that, according to Rome, the majority of us will endure purgatory. Only the saints and those who die in martyrdom will bypass it. Scripture evidently speaks of a heaven and a hell, but for purgatory, where the majority will go, it’s odd that the writers can only muster “implications.” That's quite an oversight. Indeed, it is odd that one could only muster implications considering its importance in the afterlife. Asides from its absence in Scripture, we realize that for almost two centuries there was nothing which even remotely resembled afterlife purgatorial thought, Origen and Clement of Alexandria being the first to indulge a concept of it with its fruition coming in the 12th century.

Let's look at 1 Corinthians 3:12-15

2006-07-15T11:56:00.000-05:00

Some observations on the verses:

"And if anyone builds on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw, the work of each will be revealed; for the Day will make it known, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire will prove the work of each, what sort it is. If the work of anyone which he built remains, he will receive a reward. If the work of anyone shall be consumed, he shall suffer loss; but he will be saved, but so as through fire" (1Corinthians 3:12-15)

It is claimed that the man in the verse "...will be saved, but so as through fire." According to Roman Catholics, this puts the man squarely in the fire and, thus, the man becomes the object of purification. Of course, common sense tells us that the fire must come into contact with the object in order to cause purification, thus, once again, the man must burn in the fire to which effect causes the purification.

It is further claimed that the man will "suffer loss." Some Roman Catholics will interpret the word "suffer" to mean that the man will endure some sort of extreme discomfort or pain. The word for "suffer loss" is zēmioo which, according to Strong's Concordance, means:

To injure, that is, (reflexively or passively) to experience detriment: - be cast away, receive damage, lose, suffer loss.

So, the next logical step is to determine what the man is suffering the loss of or if the man himself is going through some sort of suffering. Before we can determine this, the verses speak of the fire testing each man's "work"; thus, we know that the "work" passes through the fire. According to vss. 12 and 13, the works are those men build on the foundation of Jesus Christ. In the context of the rest of the chapter, these are the "works" of ministry. Contextually, the incorruptible materials used to build upon the foundation of Christ will endure the fire, but that which is corruptible will burn away. So, it makes perfect sense that the corruptible works of the man will be destroyed by the fire, thus this correlates with how he suffers. He suffers in the same manner one does when he sees his possessions go up in flames. Yet, he isn't the object of the flames. He escapes the fire. This is comparable to the man whose home catches fire. All his possessions, that which he worked for remain inside. He runs out before the flames claim him. When the flames are put out, he salvages what he can. Yet, almost everything is gone with the exception of that which the fire could not burn. He finds his jewels and other valuables, but that which couldn't endure burned away. Yet, as the verse plainly states, he escaped the the fire. He managed to get out. In essence, this analogy is what the passages show clearly, thus to say that it is purgatorial, placing the man as the object of the "purifying" flames, is forcing the text to say something it doesn't say.

One other thing that bears mentioning, there is no salvation in purgatory according to Rome. The soul who goes there is already saved and, whether it be a literal fire or not, must endure a cleansing in purgatory. Yet, the verses show this to be in reverse. When the man escapes the fire this is when he is "saved." According to Rome, the soul in purgatory is already saved, yet must endure the fire and released when satisfaction is attained, the stains of his sin having been purged, but this doesn't exegete well with the passages which would have the the man saved after he endures the fire.

All in all, it's a wonder that folks would actually believe these passages imply a purgatorial cleansing, when the only objects enduring the flames are those which are away or apart from the man and not those which are attached to him. How one sees a purgatory in a passage which seems to be so anti-purgatory is beyond me.

A Vicious Circle: the "Anti-Catholic"...

2006-07-13T13:48:00.000-05:00

The term “anti-Catholic” is used quite often in Catholic apologetics and in a misleading way. Many Catholic apologists, books, and apologetic websites use the word liberally and without looking back. It instills in their listeners and readers the thought that someone hates their church. In many cases, I believe it is done purposely. After all, who would want to listen to an awful “anti-Catholic”?

The word is often used in conjunction with words such as “misrepresents” and “ignorant.” For example:

“Anti-Catholics are ignorant and misrepresent what we truly believe.”

Now, the average Catholic will look at rhetoric such as this, formulate a opinion, and react accordingly, usually rejecting what the Protestant has to say even before hearing it. There is no need to hear the "anti-Catholic" because he hates Catholicism and he hates Catholics. The word brings bonding, solidarity, a sense of being, belonging, and commitment.

Admittedly, there are some who may wear their hearts on their sleeves on both sides, Protestant or Catholic, and some may just be spiteful, hateful, ignorant, and misrepresentative people to begin with, but for the majority of Evangelicals involved in apologetics this is simply not true. The majority of us are simply concerned Christians who disagree with Roman Catholic distinctives (the doctrines that define Roman Catholicism) enough to voice our our opinions against these distinctives. We believe that the Gospel is at stake here. One cannot forsake it for the sake of unity, thus we exercise our God-given right to voice our disagreement with doctrines we feel are a part of "another gospel" (see Galatians 1).

The irony in all this is that Catholics are inherently “anti-Protestant” although many don't realize it. Why? Because they are of the position that Protestants are those who left God's true church and this church is the Roman Catholic Church. Now this is a concern because the Catholic desires that Protestantism, however one defines the term, ceases and returns to the ancient Catholic church. Well, Protestants consider themselves "catholic", a part of the universal church, and that's all well and good, but regardless of the antiquity Rome claims, when the Protestant mentions to the Roman Catholic that Rome doesn’t resemble the church of old and that she- because of her distinctives- isn't the church of old, the Catholic regresses and claims that the Protestant is “anti-Catholic” because he tries to take away what from this evident "truth." The Protestant's position is never indulged because he is "ignorant" and "misrepresentative" and those who hear these words walk away from the "anti-Catholic."

Yet still we persist, following what we feel to be Paul's mandate. Trying to bring these issues into the forefront. Yet, when we try to bring them up, the Catholic apologists, books, and websites call us "anti-Catholics"...

... And so it goes...

Purging purgatory from 2 Maccabees

2006-07-07T15:36:00.000-05:00

It is a common Roman Catholic argument that 2 Maccabees 12:40-45 implies purgatory in a stronger sense then our common Scriptures. It is further argued that, because Evangelicals don't accept this book as canonical, it doesn't impede what is stated in these passages. It reveals a belief in praying for the dead and the expunging of sin in the afterlife. Thus, it is argued, purgatory would be the sensible outcome of this expiation. I've read the passages over and over again, but cannot find anything which remotely supports anything which implies anything more then the resurrection. Neither have I found any writings of the early church which uses these passages in the way Rome uses it today. So, let us break down these verses and see what it leads to:

2Maccabees 12:40 - Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law.
Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.

Clearly, those who were slain died in the state of idolatry as the law forbids. Those who were present knew this to be the reason for their deaths. Parallel this to the Catholic teaching on mortal sin which would be comparable to their transgression of the law. Those who die in a state of mortal sin cannot be prayed for. They are lost. Judas' prayer would have been unanswered.

2Maccabees 12:41 - All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,

God has revealed before all the cause of their deaths. They died because they were idolatrous.

2Maccabees 12:42 - Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.

These men prayed that the sin committed might be put out of God’s remembrance. Judas used these men as an example for the people to refrain from sin. He warned them what can happen if they indulge sin. It is unclear if the people prayed that God forget the sin in their midst or for these men.

2Maccabees 12:43 - And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:

Judas took a collection and sent it to Jerusalem so as to offer a sin offering. His intentions were pure and honest and because Judas believed in the resurrection he did so. There is no purgatorial implication here, but only that Judas believed in the resurrection—that the dead will rise again. He was hoping that his men would be raised. There was a Jewish belief that seems to have arisen later where the wicked would be destroyed. It is just as plausible to believe that Judas' believed in annihilation as he would in a purgatory.

2Maccabees 12:44 - For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.

Again, this passage pertains to the resurrection. The dead CAN rise again without inflicting a purgatory into the mix. Also, why must it be purgatory that Judas is implying? What if Judas was of the view that God can forgive and forget sin before the general judgment? So far, the implication Judas leaves us with is that if one dies in sin then one can pray that his sins be forgotten.

2Maccabees 12:45 - And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

Understand that the book was written by an "epitomizer" of “Jason the Cyrene” and he’s speaking about Judas Maccabeus. From his vantage point, he assumes that Judas is of the thought that these men may have died godly due to their service to God and regardless of their blatant disobedience to the law. Judas believed in the resurrection, thus he prayed for them. The writer assumes this to be a “good and holy thought.” Judas does the “reconciliation” because he believed they may be delivered from their sins. Again, all this is written with the resurrection in mind and all the Catholic can do is inflict “purgatory” and assume that this is what Judas is implying, but there really is no reason to believe this to be the case considering it doesn’t say how this “deliverance” is to take place. Judas could have assumed that God would merely forget their sins due to their servitude sans a purgatory. IOW, there is no reason to believe that Judas, much less the Jewish people, implied or believed in a purgatory, but could have believed that God could forgive sins after death forthright.

In ending, it seems the passages in 2 Maccabees 12 aren’t any more provocative then the common Scripture verses Catholics claim imply a purgatory. Truth is, Catholics cannot uphold this as evidence of a purgatorial belief anymore then the passages they claim from our common Scriptures. Again, there are no early writings which would corroborate that the early church viewed these passages to be purgatorial. Instead, as they do the common Scriptures, they seek implications and read their doctrine back into them.

Rocks In My Head: Some thoughts on the Matthean view of Peter

2006-06-23T09:43:00.000-05:00

Some Protestants, such as D.A. Carson, agree with the Catholic position that it is Peter who is being called the "Rock" in Matthew 16:18. However, they do not agree with Catholics regarding the charisms and authority they claim comes with the office. In other words, the same Protestants do not agree that a papacy was being established here, complete with successors, universal jurisdiction, infallibility, and all the other charisms Catholics claim for him and the office. Yet, I feel that because the "Rock" argument is essential to the Catholic belief in the papacy, if it can be refuted, then we must refute it. Take the "Rock" away from Peter and you take away a major factor in the Roman Catholic argument for the papacy. With that in mind...

It is argued that Jesus spoke Aramaic, thus there would be no gender difference considering Kepha would be employed. This is mere speculation because the Palestinians of His century would've spoken one or more idioms (Aramaic, Hebrew, and/or Greek) so there is no way of knowing for sure which language Jesus used when He stated the words in Matthew 16:18. It is further argued that Matthew may have been originally written in Aramaic. However, this assumes much considering there are no Aramaic Matthean manuscripts in existence and, until one surfaces (we won't hold our breath), there is no such thing. Yet, what speaks volumes to me is that the Greek Matthean manuscripts we do possess, do not employ any word which would give substance to the Catholic claims for the Aramaic. Why didn't Matthew write "Thou art Petra and upon this Petra I will build my church"? It would be silly to give Peter a feminine name. Is it because Peter was a "dude"? Then why wouldn't Christ say "Thou art Petros and upon this Petros I will build my church"? Whether it be a small stone or a rock, the message wouldn't be lost and Christ would be saying that Peter is who the church is built on. But there is nothing to lead that way. Instead, this divinely inspired Apostle differentiates between the feminine and the masculine form. No, there is nothing in the passage that would lead us to believe that Peter is the Rock. All in all, what this means to me is that Matthean support for Peter as the Rock is basically nonexistent.

Meanwhile, over at Jim's blog...

2006-06-14T10:06:00.000-05:00

Jim Swan posted my "Did Jerome Change His Mind on the Apocrypha ?" over at his blog found here. It is a refutal of the Catholic apologists who attempt to recreate Jerome's stance on the Apocryphal books. Jerome is considered a Doctor of the Catholic Church. Throughout history, only a few have been given this title, so to have someone of his stature disagree with the added books of the LXX (Septuagint) is rather embarrassing to some. Give it a read. Hopefully, by God's grace, I did a half-decent job :-)

Are the "Spirits in Prison" Those in Purgatory?

2006-05-28T01:09:00.000-05:00

A Roman Catholic asks:

Anyway, please educate me CM, what does it mean when St. Peter wrote that ... Christ preached to the Spirits in prison? For sure our Lord cannot be in Hell, and not in Heaven for why would the Spirits still be in prison? Wouldn't this correspond to a middle way?

My response:

Even though I have answered this in other threads, I would be more than happy to oblige. Let’s look at the verse:

1 Peter 3:18-20—For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit; in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, to disobeying ones, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared (in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water).

In context, immediately one notices that the verses aren’t, in the least, purgatorial and speaks in specifics. Who are these “spirits in prison”? They are the antediluvians, those who disobeyed during the days of Noah as the verse plainly states. There is nothing in the verse that gives credence to the concept of purgatory because it states nothing resembling a purgatory. Now, it states that Christ was put to death, but His “spirit” was made alive. IOW, this event happened in between His crucifixion and resurrection when His spirit descended into Sheol (Hades) and preached the will of God to the spirits there. In Luke 16:20-31, Jesus gives insight into the places of the dead by telling us his story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Dives, if you believe the traditional name of this man). Both went to Sheol (Hades in the Greek), but to two distinct places within Sheol. Lazarus went to what is known as Abraham’s Bosom or “paradise” (Luke 23:43), the place of the OT saints, while Dives went into the hell of the damned. There was a “gulf” between these places where one couldn’t cross to the other side (Luke 16:26). Since Christ is the only way to the Father (John 14:6) the Old Testament saints could not enter the Father’s kingdom until He came, thus they remained in Sheol in a place of “comfort” (Luke 16:25) which was called Abraham’s Bosom (Rome calls this “limbus patrum” or “limbo of the fathers”). When Christ died, He went into Abraham’s Bosom and proclaimed the gospel to the souls there. Just as in Luke 16, those within the hell of the damned could hear Christ proclaim this gospel to the saints in Abraham’s Bosom, and this gospel brought freedom to the saints in the Bosom, but to those in the hell of the damned, it condemns them all the more. Thus, it can be said that Christ preached to the “spirits in prison.” Yet, as you can plainly see, none of these “spirits” were in a purgatory, but the righteous were within Abraham’s Bosom and the wicked were within the hell of the damned. The “spirits” in Abraham’s Bosom were released a few days after the Resurrection where they appeared to many (Matthew 27:52-53).

CM

Fragments of Deceit: The Gospel of Judas

2006-04-08T01:22:00.000-05:00

Thursday, ABC provided just another of their perennial anti-Christian fare by presenting a special on the Gospel of Judas, a document purportedly written by Judas, where it is claimed that Christ asked Judas to betray Him. That it was all a part of "the plan." ABC presented this as if it were breaking news, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is disappointing to see ABC continue in this digression, attempting to bring skepticism to the very heart of Christianity while ignoring everyone else. Lord knows what would happen if they attempted to do the same with other central religious figures (Buddha, Mohammed, etc). Yet, James White wrote an excellent article exposing the biased nature of their reporting and shedding light on the document itself, which is a Gnostic work, older then the manuscript found, and one known to the early Christians, in particular, Irenaeus, an early church father, having written of it in the mid to late 2nd century and calling it a work of fiction. Anyway, you can read it here. Enjoy!

Btw...

2006-04-04T15:13:00.000-05:00

I would encourage everyone to read Jim Swan's blog. Presently, he has a pretty interesting series on Catholic misperceptions of Luther and Calvin. I think everyone will find it very informative and helpful when addressing the misrepresentations found on many forums throughout the WWW. I've been exposed to them as I know many others have. Take the time to read them and see a real Luther-aficionado at work.

Augustine speaks...

2006-04-04T14:09:00.000-05:00

Sorry for not posting the last couple of weeks, but the arm has been very sore and I thought I'd lay off the keyboard for awhile. However, I was inspired after reading this and thought I'd post it:

As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: "And if ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for tim guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion (Reply to Faustus the Manicheaen, XI, V).

Augustine is clear that the Scriptures are sufficient in determining doctrine and that one can exercise private judgment in determining its interpretation. He is careful to point out that truth is weighed by the proper exegesis of Scripture, but he recognizes even his own fallibilities and points out that his writings are just a means to edify. Compare this to those who claim that Scripture is subservient to the Church's "infallible" interpretation and not meant for anyone's private judgment.

Just thought you'd like to know...

On the Canon: Part 1...

2006-03-12T22:23:00.000-06:00

Seems like I've spent a lot of time dealing with canon issues lately. I don't know why, but it seems that assumptions rule the day when it comes to the issue of the Jews, the canon, their alleged exclusion of the deuterocanonical books, books which were allegedly held as Scripture by the Alexandrian Jews, the issue of when they closed the canon, and so on. No one denies that, in largely Hellenistic times, the Greek LXX (Septuagint) would be the translation of choice, especially for a gospel that was being preached to the Greeks. Allegedly, the Jews of Alexandria included the extra books, those which comprise the Apocrypha (deuterocanonicals if you prefer), within their text, but inclusion into a set of books doesn't necessarily mean that these were held to be divine and inspired. Usually, it is argued, these book were part and parcel of their canon, but it seems they disappeared at Jamnia, some say as a polemic against the Christians.

When the OT Scriptures were translated into the Greek language, it was done by a group of Jewish elders commonly known as "the 70" (by some accounts there were as many as 72), at the request of Ptolemy II. Although some credit them to have translated the entirety of the Old Testament and the other books, it was solely the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) which they translated. There is a legend that these elders translated the books independently of one another, when they compared the translations, they were found to be completely uniform, word for word. I've heard this story from many of the Catholics I've dialogued with, but it is stated under the assumption that the "70" translated the entire Alexandrian text. As time progressed, other books were translated by various translators. The earliest codex of the LXX (Vaticanus) is dated early 4th century and was transcribed by Christians, not Jews. It is obvious that the Apostles quoted from the Greek LXX, but again, there is no real evidence that the text they used included the extra books (from here on referred to as the LXX+). I'm sure they were familiar with the books, but to equate familiarity with canonical acceptance would be assumption at its purest. Paul wasn't hesitant to use pagan sources if they conveyed a certain truth, as he did in Acts 17:28 with the Stoic philosopher Aratus, in 1 Corinthians 15:32 with Menander, and in Titus 1:12 with the poet Epimenides. These citations, by virtue of their inclusion in Scripture, become Scripture. However, their inclusion into Scripture doesn't make the entirety of their writings Scripture as a result.

Then we get to the issue of books being "tossed out" at the so-called council of Jamnia, but this was not a council in the sense of one that comes together to vote, neither did they toss out books. Talmudic sources recorded the debates over canonical books, such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and others, but there are no records indicating that deuterocanonical books were ever debated, much less "tossed out." Roger Beckwith, in his book The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, mentions the debates over canonical books and makes an excellent point. He states that if history records the debates over books which remained in the canon, how much more it would have recorded debates over books which were taken out. Yet, there are no such records to indicate that this was ever the case. Instead, from Catholics, we find them associating the Jewish absence of recognition towards the Apocryphal books with the debates surrounding the few "canonical" books. They relate the two regardless of the fact that there were no issues regarding the Apocrypha. The canonical books debated remain part and parcel of each of our canons to this very day.

For some funny reason, it seems that the Jews just don't factor in anymore when it comes to the Old Testament canon. At least that's how it seems when speaking to the Catholic apologist. They boldly claim that Protestants are following a Jewish decision rather then a Christian one. Yet, Paul states in Romans 3:2 that the Jews were "...entrusted with the oracles of God." Paul wouldn't have said it unless he was familiar with the books they were familiar with. It would seem that the Jews understood what comprised the divine words of God and Paul gives credence to this. On another note, Jesus seems to imply the extent of the Jewish canon with His words in Luke 11:51. If we go with the Jewish chronological order of the books, this would place Genesis, where Abel's murder is recorded, as the first book and 2 Chronicles, where Zechariah is killed, as the last book of the canon. One particular Catholic argued that, for this to work, the Zechariah spoken of here must be the "son of Barachiah" according to its parallel verse in Matthew 23:35, thus this would be a reference to Zechariah 1:1 and not 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, but this doesn't allow for Christ's words considering the Zechariah of Zechariah 1:1 didn't die in the manner Christ describes. So, why does Matthew associate the "son of Barachiah" with Zechariah? It could be that the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-22 had a common ancestor who had the name "Barachiah." It wasn't uncommon for the Jews to use the term "son of" with the name of a well-known ancestor, rather then with the paternal. A good example of this would be Jesus, He was known as the "son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23; John 1:45) but He was also known as the "son of David" (Matthew 12:23; Mark 10:47).

To be continued...

Wes King...

2006-03-11T22:59:00.000-06:00

Many of you are familiar with Christian artist Wes King who was diagnosed with lymphoma. He recently received his last chemo treatment, blood count is up, and is doing a lot better. His treatments have really left him and his family financially unable to keep up, thus the Life is Precious: A Wes King Tribute CD was born. It will be released Tuesday, March 14th, but you can preorder and get 3 bonus tracks. There are various artists involved, amongst the most notable Phil Keaggy, Cheri Keaggy, and Derek Webb (who most of us Reformed folks know), former founding member of the band Caedmon's Call. Wes and his family needs your prayers in these trying times, but please, throw a little works into the mix and buy the CD. Click the link with the album name above for the link. Peace.

"Life is precious, life is sweet

Like the earth beneath my feet

Though I know I'm passing through

I know I belong to You

Life is precious, life is sweet

And this truth makes it complete

Knowing Jesus died for me

Life is precious

Life is precious, life is sweet"

-------Wes King-------

OUCH!!!

2006-03-06T19:23:00.000-06:00

Had a bit of a spill yesterday. I was watching a rerun of "Leave It To Beaver" and, during the commercial, I ran downstairs to grab a slice of Entenmann's Banana Cake (love the stuff). There was a wet spot on the floor that I didn't see and "WHAM!!" I took flight and wound up on my shoulder under the table. Me, being the bozo that I am, didn't bother to go to the hospital and, here I am, almost certain that my shoulder's dislocated. I had a heckuva time trying to sleep last night and I'm popping Tylenol's every few hours. Although I can move everything under the elbow (I can even type), I can't raise my arms past a few inches. Well, I have committed that I will go to the hospital if there is no improvement by tomorrow, but as you've probably assumed, I hate hospitals. Stay tuned...

A Private Man

2006-03-04T12:45:00.000-06:00

The bummer about being a novice at this is that I have to post my picture on my blog in order to use it on my profile. Well, being the private person that I am, I really hate the thought of posting my pic. It just unhinges me that I would have to do this when I want my rugged, handsome features to remain incognito. So, realizing that this really sucks, here I am in all my glory. Ladies, please control yourselves. I'm married with children.

A doctrine that needs a little "purgation" (heh..heh) Part 1

2006-03-04T09:16:00.000-06:00

Good ol' Martin Luther really had his work cut out for him. I mean trying to dialogue with a Church about things you just don't dialogue about. The poor guy just had something to say, but alas, poor Martin was running with the wind and stirred Christians into understanding what we had become.

One of the springboards of the Reformation was the issue of indulgences and purgatory. I think I'll give it a tackle as soon as a I get a chance.

Gee...this blogging thing is easier than I thought. Makes me wonder what would've happen if good ol' Martin were here today, blogging his 95 Thesis here on the WWW.

Peace,
CM